[Keith G[_2_]]

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

What's the tune/artist in this first extract, Keith?

It's the 'Honeysuckle Suite: I. Sugar Maple/II. Elm/III. Sweetgum' -
on side 2 of the Rachel's 'Selenography' double album. I've got the
vinyl (needless to say) but it's available on CD for notta lotta
money:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selenography.../dp/B00000IR6T

Thanks for that - will lay me hands on it sooner or later.


There's not much harpsichord on that or any other Rachel's album, Wally -
have a look at these sites for an idea; there's some video and audio to be
found, if you scrunt about a bit:

http://www.rachelsband.com/index.html

http://www.rachelgrimespiano.com/

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Powell
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one
spike has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor.
(The floor is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

"concrete"... is a very good vibration sink compared to wood, for
example.

What size/shape/structure/type of "concrete" do you have in mind, and
what do you mean by "sink"? Can you point pun me at measurements to
support what you say?

In theory, all things being equal (concrete's mass will convert more
sound energy to heat more efficiently as compared to wood which tends to
resonate.

Afraid that reads like a rather muddled set of assertions to me. Which "all
things" are you setting "equal"? What do you mean by "concrete's mass"? Do
you mean 'density', or what?

How does 'concrete' having 'mass' mean it disspates vibration more easily
than the same 'mass' of wood?

What about the question of coupling between the different mechanical
impedances which may mean that less energy transfers? etc, etc.

All solid structures have a tendency to 'resonate'. But since you still say
nothing about the structral sizes and shapes, nor the internal wave
impedances, velocities, or dissipation factors, nor how the coupling
depends on many factors, your assertion isn't one you have actually
explained.


Many high end speaker manufactures like Wilson Audio, B&W,
Egglestonworks and others construct speaker cabinets out of synthetic
compounds, stone, or aluminum for this reason., for example. Of course
in practice it is more a complicated subject because of Q value effects.

Meausrements... yes, I have data. What is your specific question?

Provide the specific measurements (and how you did them) that back up the
specific assertions you make above. We could then decide if your views are
supported by measurements you (or others) have made, nor not.

If this is a carpet and pad installation over concrete it is unlikely
that spikes will work anyway, IME.

"Work" means?...

For maximum effectiveness spikes should not be run through any type of
carpet interface (carpet/foam).

You have now traded one word (work) you didn't define for a phrase
(effectiveness) which you also haven't defined. What is your measureable
definition for these terms?

If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't penetrate the
carpet/pad substrate.

Well, I do have spikes on one of the pairs of speakers I use. And I had no
trouble getting them to penetrate the thick carpet and underlay. However I
don't know that the spikes do much beyond stopping the speakers wobbling a
bit if I bump into them. However...

The problem here is as already referred to in this thread. That various
people make all kinds of confident assertions about how spikes/cones
'work'. But they often do so in vague and sweeping ways, providing no
evidence beyond assertions. And the 'reasons' they assert often conflict
with one another. This seems to apply both to the behaviour of spikes, and
the behaviour of the materials and objects they link.

Quality casters make a good alternative (measured reduction in
cabinet vibration) to speaker spikes, IME.

Ah. Thanks, can you give a URL for the measurements you are referring
to here?

I've not placed this data on the web.

OK. So you are just presenting your opinions without presenting any of your
(claimed) evidence. Thus no-one can tell if what you claim stands up, or
that your evidence actually supports your assertions. Nor, indeed, if you
actually have any evidence.

Since my background is in science and engineering, I do tend to prefer to
base my own conclusions on being able to assess measured evidence, and the
details of how those measurements were obtained. Given that consumer audio
is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to place more reliance on that than on
simply accepting assertions.

Thus far I am left with the feeling that your assertions do muddle up
different physical properties. This isn't unusual. Many people with no
serious background in physical science or engineering can confuse things
like 'strength' and 'rigidity', 'mass' and 'density', etc, etc. However if
you don't provide any measurements of your own, and can't even point to
ones by others that support your assertions, I can't reach an actual
conclusion. I can only decide that your opinions have not been given any
reliable basis upon which others can assess them.

FWIW I think Keith Howard did do some measurements on some of the effects
of 'spikes' a few years ago for HFN. I also think there are lists of values
of the relevant material properties in 'Structure-Borne Sound' by Cremer,
Heckl, and Ungar. I do have a copy of that[1] and the magazines. So I'll
have a look if I get a chance and see what the data indicates. BTW IIRC
materials like 'wood' and 'concrete' have ranges of material values that do
cover quite large ranges. Be interesting to refresh my memory on this when
I have a chance. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Cost a fortune and reads like the English is still in German. 8-] But
is packed with some interesting data and analysis. Recommended to anyone
with a serious interest in this topic who doesn't mind being faced with
some 'hard sums' maths. ;-

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Rob[_12_]]

Powell wrote:

snip


For maximum effectiveness spikes should not be run
through any type of carpet interface (carpet/foam).
If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate.

If by pad you mean underlay, spikes I've used just do. Certainly helps a
lot with wobble, especially with small footprint floor standing speakers.

The tightly
woven jute backing and under pad is the problem.
The conical shape of spikes simply will not couple
to the sub-floor... and I mean tightly.

What do you mean by a sub-floor? Floor?!

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Powell wrote:

snip


For maximum effectiveness spikes should not be run
through any type of carpet interface (carpet/foam).
If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate.

If by pad you mean underlay, spikes I've used just do. Certainly helps a
lot with wobble, especially with small footprint floor standing speakers.

Indeed, I've just remembered that the pair of LS3/5A's I have on stands in
the dining room also have spikes - for the same reason as you mention. On
tall stands and wobble alarmingly or may move around if bumped into unless
spiked. They also penetrate though quite a thick carpet and underlay.

Maybe none of us have "high" enough "quality" carpet. Can't say as yet as
these are also words Powell has used without providing a measurable
definition. The phrase "vague and sweeping assertions" does come to mind.
Maybe "sweeping" is relevant for carpets, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Powell]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

My speakers have four spikes beneath them which makes it a pain to
move the speakers even slightly as the length of at least one
spike has to be adjusted to make all four rest on/in the floor.
(The floor is solid - maybe concrete - and not wood.)

"concrete"... is a very good vibration sink compared to wood, for
example.

What size/shape/structure/type of "concrete" do you have in mind, and
what do you mean by "sink"? Can you point pun me at measurements to
support what you say?

In theory, all things being equal (concrete's mass will convert more
sound energy to heat more efficiently as compared to wood which tends to
resonate.

Afraid that reads like a rather muddled set of assertions to me. Which
"all
things" are you setting "equal"? What do you mean by "concrete's mass"? Do
you mean 'density', or what?

How does 'concrete' having 'mass' mean it disspates vibration more easily
than the same 'mass' of wood?

What about the question of coupling between the different mechanical
impedances which may mean that less energy transfers? etc, etc.

All solid structures have a tendency to 'resonate'. But since you still
say
nothing about the structral sizes and shapes, nor the internal wave
impedances, velocities, or dissipation factors, nor how the coupling
depends on many factors, your assertion isn't one you have actually
explained.

The spiked speaker act as a spring component (albeit a rather stiff one).
The potential positive effect of spikes is related to the speaker-floor
coupling this spring component causes.

The speaker-floor coupling is a (more or less damped) resonnant system.
Below the resonnance frequency, the speaker & floor acts as one solid unit.
If you have a rigid, heavy floor (concrete etc), you might experience clean
bass with maximum attack. Hi-fi bass at it's best? With a lively (wooden
etc.) floor, the floor - and maybe even the walls - may act as passive
transducers totally out of control. If you can feel the bass coming through
your feet or your chair (as opposed to hitting your stomach & chest) this is
probably what caused it. Hi-fi bass at it's worst!

Above the resonnance frequency, the speaker is practically decoupled from
the floor. Whether this causes "the tail wagging the dog" in an audible
sense depends on speaker mass, cone mass, speaker center of inertia and cone
location on speaker. In most cases this effect will be neglible. But if the
resonnance frequency is very low (say, 15 Hz) - and if the speaker is
lightweight (30-40 Lbs) - you may get compressed transient response,
particularly from the bass element.

What's now left is the region around the resonnance frequency. A lot of
unwanted things may happen here. The speaker-floor coupling will have a Q
value, determining how well-damped the resonnance is. Poor damping may cause
significant problem in this region - due to speaker vibration.

For a given speaker, the speaker-floor coupling (be it spikes, squash balls,
rubber wheels, MDF etc), defines the resonnant frequency and the Q value of
the coupling. Spikes will typically move the resonnant frequency up somwhere
in the midrange , and the system will have a relatively high Q-value. While
(in some cases) improving bass performance, this may create audible problems
in the midrange. Remove the spikes and you may replace midrange problems
with similar (but not neccessarily similar sounding) problems in the bass
region. You cannot move the resonnance frequency above audible range (20
kHz) - which is why you might have to compromise.

Another strategy is to move the resonnance down in frequency with silent
feet, rubber weels etc. With heavy speakers you can move the resonnance
frequency well below 20 Hz - out of audible range. In addition the bass
output will be as clean as you've ever heard, but you might be loosing some
attack due to the decoupling from the floor (or maybe you're just addicted
to "hi-fi bass"). Compromise here too? Maybe not.

Allthough the sonic effects of spikes may vary from speaker to speaker and
from room to room, they do move the resonnance of the speaker-floor combo up
in frequency. Sometimes it improves overall sound, sometimes it doesn't. But
the effects have a very natural explanation.



Many high end speaker manufactures like Wilson Audio, B&W,
Egglestonworks and others construct speaker cabinets out of synthetic
compounds, stone, or aluminum for this reason., for example. Of course
in practice it is more a complicated subject because of Q value effects.

Meausrements... yes, I have data. What is your specific question?

Provide the specific measurements (and how you did them) that back up the
specific assertions you make above. We could then decide if your views are
supported by measurements you (or others) have made, nor not.

Who is "we"? You don't speak for anyone but yourself, Lesurf.


Since my background is in science and engineering,

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License,
for someone to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of
formal education in engineering do you have...
undergraduate/graduate and in what field?


I do tend to prefer to base my own conclusions on being able
to assess measured evidence, and the details of how those
measurements were obtained.

I understand. I've run about 23 batches of tests, as I recall, several
years back. If I have time I'll post something.


Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to
place more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Powell
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote
[big snip of assertions and opinions]

Meausrements... yes, I have data. What is your specific question?

Provide the specific measurements (and how you did them) that back up
the specific assertions you make above. We could then decide if your
views are supported by measurements you (or others) have made, nor not.

Who is "we"?

This is usenet, and these postings are going to a number of groups. Chances
are you and I aren't the only people reading this. Surprised if you didn't
know this. Or is your question purely a debating tactic?

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, Lesurf.

Ah,you seem to have adopted the 'Go for the man, not the ball' debating
tactic. And employed the tone of 'Headmaster telling off the naughty
schoolboy who dared to ask impertinent questions'. :-)

....or as just a debating tactic to cover for not actually answering my
questions and providing the measurements you say you have. Is the idea
now to try and get a personal argument going to smokescreen that? :-)


Since my background is in science and engineering,

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?

Ah, yes. Looks like you do prefer "go for the man not the ball" instead of
dealing with the substance.

You seem to overlooked that you haven't yet provided any measurements or
details of how you obtained them. Lacking that, how could anyone else say
if a given background would be appropriate to judge what you did? And the
point of my "we" above was that once you 'publish' your data every/any
individual reading this could make up their own mind about your assertions
without having to take either me or you as an 'expert'.

I'm not bothered if you doubt I am 'qualified' or not. Nor if someone else
has doubts. In physical science and engineering, people decide on the
evidence, not on the basis of simply accepting that someone is 'qualified'
so must be right. I just wanted to see what evidence you could offer for
your assertions and claims.

BTW Note that you introduced "qualifications" as if they were a test of
some kind. Not me. Then snipped the explaination I gave for why I was
saying what I was. Although if you want to call me 'Lesurf' you could be
more accurate and call me 'Dr Lesurf' purely for the sake of form. :-)
Maybe even put letters like IEEE and AES somewhere after my name, I guess.
But I agree with you that 'Dr' in front of my name, etc, doesn't ensure I
could judge your measurements. Hence I don't normally use the 'Dr', etc, as
it seems irrelevant. Particularly when there are no presented measurements
to actually consider. :-)

I'm quite happy to leave others reading this to make up their own mind on
the basis of what you've said, and how you have responded. That should set
your mind at rest if you fear I might lack the required 'qualifications'
you would demand for anyone who dared to examine your measurements in a
critical manner. :-)


I do tend to prefer to base my own conclusions on being able to assess
measured evidence, and the details of how those measurements were
obtained.

I understand. I've run about 23 batches of tests, as I recall, several
years back. If I have time I'll post something.

Look forwards to it. :-) Please post the announcement in all the groups
this is going to if you wish everyone reading your assertions to be able to
make up their own minds and decide for themselves if your measurements
actually support what you have claimed.

Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to place
more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

Thanks for your help. Your response does help me make an interim assessment
of your assertions whilst I await any evidence you eventually produce.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Wally]

Powell wrote:

Allthough the sonic effects of spikes may vary from speaker to
speaker and from room to room, they do move the resonnance of the
speaker-floor combo up in frequency. Sometimes it improves overall
sound, sometimes it doesn't. But the effects have a very natural
explanation.

Care to explain the mechanism that causes the resonant frequency to move up?


Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to
place more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

What makes you think he doesn't/hasn't? It's you that's making certain
claims about the effects of spikes, and the onus is on you to support those
claims with evidence. The fact that he's asking for evidence doesn't
preclude him having done his own research already.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Wally
wrote:
Powell wrote:

Allthough the sonic effects of spikes may vary from speaker to speaker
and from room to room, they do move the resonnance of the
speaker-floor combo up in frequency. Sometimes it improves overall
sound, sometimes it doesn't. But the effects have a very natural
explanation.

Care to explain the mechanism that causes the resonant frequency to move
up?

FWIW I decided not to comment on the bulk of the items asserted most
recently as I didn't want to widen the issues. But a number of questions
like the above did occur to me. The problem is that with no measurements,
details of experimental arrangements, etc, it is often hard to assess the
assertions people make.


Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to
place more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

What makes you think he doesn't/hasn't? It's you that's making certain
claims about the effects of spikes, and the onus is on you to support
those claims with evidence. The fact that he's asking for evidence
doesn't preclude him having done his own research already.

Nor is it a requirement that someone must already have done their own
personal measurements to ask for the measurements someone else claims to
already have to support their assertions.

The point of the scientific approach is that anyone who wishes can make
their own decisions *based on the presented evidence*. Not on the basis
that they must accept that the person making the assertions is an
'authority' who must not be questioned or doubted. Access to the
measurements and details of how they were done allows anyone who wishes to
come to their own conclusions.

So for me the key point is the middle one made above. That Powell is making
a series of assertions and claiming to have 'measurements' to back them up.
As is the norm in physical science and engineering, this means we judge the
assertions by examination of the evidence. Up to the person making the
assertions to provide this. I see no reason at present to doubt he does
have 'measurements', but none of us can judge their value without seeing
them and knowing the details of how they were obtained. Hence my questions
to him.

I have noticed over they years that it is quite common on usenet (and
perhaps in audio in particular) for some people to react to being asked for
mere evidence or an explanation that can be tested on the basis of
estabilished physical science as if being asked was a 'personal attack'.
Hence responses using debating or other tactics like 'go for the man' for
daring to question the asserted 'wisdom'. To me that seems at best an
irrelevance, and at worst a smokescreen preventing each person from being
able to form their own conclusions on the basis of the *evidence*. I have
no real interest in debating games or personal arguments. So if no
measurements are forthcoming I am content to leave the matter here and
allow each person reading this thread to come to their own conclusions.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Powell
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote
[big snip of assertions and opinions]

Meausrements... yes, I have data. What is your specific question?

Provide the specific measurements (and how you did them) that back up
the specific assertions you make above. We could then decide if your
views are supported by measurements you (or others) have made, nor not.

Who is "we"?

This is usenet, and these postings are going to a number of groups.
Chances
are you and I aren't the only people reading this. Surprised if you didn't
know this. Or is your question purely a debating tactic?

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, Lesurf.

Ah,you seem to have adopted the 'Go for the man, not the ball' debating
tactic. And employed the tone of 'Headmaster telling off the naughty
schoolboy who dared to ask impertinent questions'. :-)

...or as just a debating tactic to cover for not actually answering my
questions and providing the measurements you say you have. Is the idea
now to try and get a personal argument going to smokescreen that? :-)


Since my background is in science and engineering,

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?

Ah, yes. Looks like you do prefer "go for the man not the ball" instead of
dealing with the substance.

You seem to overlooked that you haven't yet provided any measurements or
details of how you obtained them. Lacking that, how could anyone else say
if a given background would be appropriate to judge what you did? And the
point of my "we" above was that once you 'publish' your data every/any
individual reading this could make up their own mind about your assertions
without having to take either me or you as an 'expert'.

I'm not bothered if you doubt I am 'qualified' or not. Nor if someone else
has doubts. In physical science and engineering, people decide on the
evidence, not on the basis of simply accepting that someone is 'qualified'
so must be right. I just wanted to see what evidence you could offer for
your assertions and claims.

BTW Note that you introduced "qualifications" as if they were a test of
some kind. Not me. Then snipped the explaination I gave for why I was
saying what I was. Although if you want to call me 'Lesurf' you could be
more accurate and call me 'Dr Lesurf' purely for the sake of form. :-)
Maybe even put letters like IEEE and AES somewhere after my name, I guess.
But I agree with you that 'Dr' in front of my name, etc, doesn't ensure I
could judge your measurements. Hence I don't normally use the 'Dr', etc,
as
it seems irrelevant. Particularly when there are no presented measurements
to actually consider. :-)

I'm quite happy to leave others reading this to make up their own mind on
the basis of what you've said, and how you have responded. That should set
your mind at rest if you fear I might lack the required 'qualifications'
you would demand for anyone who dared to examine your measurements in a
critical manner. :-)


I do tend to prefer to base my own conclusions on being able to assess
measured evidence, and the details of how those measurements were
obtained.

I understand. I've run about 23 batches of tests, as I recall, several
years back. If I have time I'll post something.

Look forwards to it. :-) Please post the announcement in all the groups
this is going to if you wish everyone reading your assertions to be able
to
make up their own minds and decide for themselves if your measurements
actually support what you have claimed.

Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to place
more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

Thanks for your help. Your response does help me make an interim
assessment
of your assertions whilst I await any evidence you eventually produce.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Geoff Mackenzie]

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?


Really? Would you care to explain that to my daughter, who gained her
degree in Mechanical Engineering from Coventry a few years ago? Or her
grandfather, who did the same degree (different Uni - I think Oxbridge, but
can't remember - it was pre-war) and among other things certificated the
Olympus engines fitted to Concorde but to the end of his days was happy to
describe himself as an "engineer"?

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

Geoff MacK

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Geoff Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Powell
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote
[big snip of assertions and opinions]

Meausrements... yes, I have data. What is your specific question?

Provide the specific measurements (and how you did them) that back up
the specific assertions you make above. We could then decide if your
views are supported by measurements you (or others) have made, nor
not.

Who is "we"?

This is usenet, and these postings are going to a number of groups.
Chances
are you and I aren't the only people reading this. Surprised if you
didn't
know this. Or is your question purely a debating tactic?

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, Lesurf.

Ah,you seem to have adopted the 'Go for the man, not the ball' debating
tactic. And employed the tone of 'Headmaster telling off the naughty
schoolboy who dared to ask impertinent questions'. :-)

...or as just a debating tactic to cover for not actually answering my
questions and providing the measurements you say you have. Is the idea
now to try and get a personal argument going to smokescreen that? :-)


Since my background is in science and engineering,

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?

Ah, yes. Looks like you do prefer "go for the man not the ball" instead
of
dealing with the substance.

You seem to overlooked that you haven't yet provided any measurements or
details of how you obtained them. Lacking that, how could anyone else say
if a given background would be appropriate to judge what you did? And the
point of my "we" above was that once you 'publish' your data every/any
individual reading this could make up their own mind about your
assertions
without having to take either me or you as an 'expert'.

I'm not bothered if you doubt I am 'qualified' or not. Nor if someone
else
has doubts. In physical science and engineering, people decide on the
evidence, not on the basis of simply accepting that someone is
'qualified'
so must be right. I just wanted to see what evidence you could offer for
your assertions and claims.

BTW Note that you introduced "qualifications" as if they were a test of
some kind. Not me. Then snipped the explaination I gave for why I was
saying what I was. Although if you want to call me 'Lesurf' you could be
more accurate and call me 'Dr Lesurf' purely for the sake of form. :-)
Maybe even put letters like IEEE and AES somewhere after my name, I
guess.
But I agree with you that 'Dr' in front of my name, etc, doesn't ensure I
could judge your measurements. Hence I don't normally use the 'Dr', etc,
as
it seems irrelevant. Particularly when there are no presented
measurements
to actually consider. :-)

I'm quite happy to leave others reading this to make up their own mind on
the basis of what you've said, and how you have responded. That should
set
your mind at rest if you fear I might lack the required 'qualifications'
you would demand for anyone who dared to examine your measurements in a
critical manner. :-)


I do tend to prefer to base my own conclusions on being able to assess
measured evidence, and the details of how those measurements were
obtained.

I understand. I've run about 23 batches of tests, as I recall, several
years back. If I have time I'll post something.

Look forwards to it. :-) Please post the announcement in all the groups
this is going to if you wish everyone reading your assertions to be able
to
make up their own minds and decide for themselves if your measurements
actually support what you have claimed.

Given that consumer audio is awash with 'technobabble' I tend to place
more reliance on that than on simply accepting assertions.

You enjoy intellectualizing but it would behoove you to get off your
penguin butt and do the work yourself.

Thanks for your help. Your response does help me make an interim
assessment
of your assertions whilst I await any evidence you eventually produce.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html



Sorry, didn't mean to post twice - still failing to get to grips with Vista,
which I find actively user-hostile.

Geoff MacK

[Rob[_12_]]

Geoff Mackenzie wrote:




There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?


Really? Would you care to explain that to my daughter, who gained her
degree in Mechanical Engineering from Coventry a few years ago? Or her
grandfather, who did the same degree (different Uni - I think Oxbridge,
but can't remember - it was pre-war) and among other things
certificated the Olympus engines fitted to Concorde but to the end of
his days was happy to describe himself as an "engineer"?

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.


I think there's 'qualifications', and 'qualified'.

Personally, I don't think having an academic degree necessarily
qualifies someone as anything. Doing/building/designing (etc) does. Not
sure what your daughter would say - I suspect she might agree.

And qualifications are not required to gain chartered engineering status
in a number of fields - they certainly help, though. Whether that means
they're any good is a different matter altogether.

And and and, you can call yourself whatever you want - don't make it so
though :-)

Rob

[David Looser]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

And qualifications are not required to gain chartered engineering status
in a number of fields -

Well of course chartered status is a qualification in itself, but I am not
aware of any body that will award chartered status without the candidate
already having appropriate academic qualifications. Perhaps you can
elaborate if you believe otherwise.

David.

And and and, you can call yourself whatever you want - don't make it so
though :-)


Not anything, certain job titles, such as "architect" are reserved to those
with appropriate qualifications. Though I agree that the term "engineer"
isn't one of them.

David.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 28/08/09 15:47, in article , "David
Looser" wrote:

(...)

Not anything, certain job titles, such as "architect" are reserved to those
with appropriate qualifications. Though I agree that the term "engineer"
isn't one of them.

It is in most countries. In some countries, it's even used as a honorific,
similar to "Dr." or "MD" for doctors.


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Geoff Mackenzie wrote:




There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?


Really? Would you care to explain that to my daughter, who gained her
degree in Mechanical Engineering from Coventry a few years ago? Or her
grandfather, who did the same degree (different Uni - I think Oxbridge,
but can't remember - it was pre-war) and among other things certificated
the Olympus engines fitted to Concorde but to the end of his days was
happy to describe himself as an "engineer"?

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.


I think there's 'qualifications', and 'qualified'.

Define your terms.



Personally, I don't think having an academic degree necessarily qualifies
someone as anything. Doing/building/designing (etc) does. Not sure what
your daughter would say - I suspect she might agree.

Ah - "I qualified in the University of Life". I think that my daughter
would agree that a few years waving a spanner or a soldering iron around
doesn't make up for a decent academic background in the fundamentals. Of
course, you'd have to ask her.



And qualifications are not required to gain chartered engineering status
in a number of fields - they certainly help, though. Whether that means
they're any good is a different matter altogether.


Really? What fields? University of Eastern Florida comes to mind....

And and and, you can call yourself whatever you want - don't make it so
though :-)

Sure, I can call myself "Reverend" or "Lord". As you say, don't make it
so. But a decent degree from a recognised university followed by practical
experience makes it more likely that you can achieve some sort of career.

Geoff MacK

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Wally
wrote:
Powell wrote:

Allthough the sonic effects of spikes may vary from speaker to speaker
and from room to room, they do move the resonnance of the
speaker-floor combo up in frequency. Sometimes it improves overall
sound, sometimes it doesn't. But the effects have a very natural
explanation.

Care to explain the mechanism that causes the resonant frequency to move
up?

FWIW I decided not to comment on the bulk of the items asserted most
recently as I didn't want to widen the issues. But a number of questions
like the above did occur to me. The problem is that with no measurements,
details of experimental arrangements, etc, it is often hard to assess the
assertions people make.

I believe that Mr. Powell is a troll. However, I do suggest looking at
the following:

1. A system with two masses, one very large and one very small, which are
loosely coupled by a flexible joint.

2. A system with two masses, one very large and one very small, which are
more tightly coupled.

If the masses are the same in these two examples, and you look at the response
to excitation of the smaller mass, what happens to the main resonance as the
coupling is increased? Hint: both the resonant frequency and the Q are
changed.

This stuff is easy to model as a two mass spring system, in the simplest cases.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?


Really? Would you care to explain that to my daughter, who gained her
degree in Mechanical Engineering from Coventry a few years ago? Or her
grandfather, who did the same degree (different Uni - I think Oxbridge, but
can't remember - it was pre-war) and among other things certificated the
Olympus engines fitted to Concorde but to the end of his days was happy to
describe himself as an "engineer"?

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

Here in Virginia, these people could not legally call themselves engineers
unless they have passed the PE examination. The PE exam is fairly difficult.
In some other places, anyone can call themself an engineer, no matter what
kind of education and experience they ahve.

Places differ.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
Geoff Mackenzie wrote:
There are ZERO qualifications, not even a Drivers License, for someone
to call themselves a "Engineer". What kind of formal education in
engineering do you have... undergraduate/graduate and in what field?
Really? Would you care to explain that to my daughter, who gained her
degree in Mechanical Engineering from Coventry a few years ago? Or her
grandfather, who did the same degree (different Uni - I think Oxbridge, but
can't remember - it was pre-war) and among other things certificated the
Olympus engines fitted to Concorde but to the end of his days was happy to
describe himself as an "engineer"?

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

Here in Virginia, these people could not legally call themselves engineers
unless they have passed the PE examination. The PE exam is fairly difficult.
In some other places, anyone can call themself an engineer, no matter what
kind of education and experience they ahve.

Places differ.
--scott

It's been my experience that the guy pushing faders is generically
called the "sound engineer," and that is fully interchangeable in common
usage with "sound man" or "sound guy."

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I won't be making that mistake
again.

To be honest, I don't know why I didn't think about that before. I don't
call my professors "Doctor" unless they've earned that degree.

Friggin' duh. g

/palm to forehead

---Jeff

[Geoff Mackenzie]

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/09 15:47, in article , "David
Looser" wrote:

(...)

Not anything, certain job titles, such as "architect" are reserved to
those
with appropriate qualifications. Though I agree that the term "engineer"
isn't one of them.

It is in most countries. In some countries, it's even used as a honorific,
similar to "Dr." or "MD" for doctors.

Curious, that. My late pa-in-law was hugely qualified, greatly respected in
his profession (he was an aeronautical engineer) but when he signed my
wedding certificate as "engineer" I would swear the Vicar looked for the
gease under his fingernails....

Considering we (in England) engendered the industrial revolution, I do
wonder why we don't give the term "engineer" the respect it deserves.

Geoff MacK

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider wrote:

It's been my experience that the guy pushing faders is generically
called the "sound engineer," and that is fully interchangeable in common
usage with "sound man" or "sound guy."

Yes, this is not legal in Virginia. The Society of Broadcast Engineers is
currently petitioning the state to make an SBE certification or an old FCC
First Phone License a legal identification to call yourself a broadcast
engineer, however.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I won't be making that mistake
again.

I have had folks get into big trouble with it when bidding for state
contracts.

To be honest, I don't know why I didn't think about that before. I don't
call my professors "Doctor" unless they've earned that degree.

"You can call me doctor, but you'd be wrong because I have a Master's
degree. You can call me professor but you'd be wrong there too because
I'm a lecturer. So call me Colonel."
-- Col. Pasafiume

People get touchy about these kinds of things.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 28/08/09 18:01, in article , "Geoff
Mackenzie" wrote:


"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/09 15:47, in article , "David
Looser" wrote:

(...)

Not anything, certain job titles, such as "architect" are reserved to
those
with appropriate qualifications. Though I agree that the term "engineer"
isn't one of them.

It is in most countries. In some countries, it's even used as a honorific,
similar to "Dr." or "MD" for doctors.

Curious, that. My late pa-in-law was hugely qualified, greatly respected in
his profession (he was an aeronautical engineer) but when he signed my
wedding certificate as "engineer" I would swear the Vicar looked for the
gease under his fingernails....

Considering we (in England) engendered the industrial revolution, I do
wonder why we don't give the term "engineer" the respect it deserves.

I suspect the explanation is linguistical. The word "engine". In French
"engin" means "device", and in German, there is no direct descendant of the
the latin "ingenium". Both languages translate the English "engine" into
either "motor" or "machine", depending on context.


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
And qualifications are not required to gain chartered engineering status
in a number of fields -

Well of course chartered status is a qualification in itself, but I am not
aware of any body that will award chartered status without the candidate
already having appropriate academic qualifications. Perhaps you can
elaborate if you believe otherwise.


To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or
acted a consultant, that type of thing.

Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.
I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need
formal qualifications - don't know though.

Rob

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
It's been my experience that the guy pushing faders is generically
called the "sound engineer," and that is fully interchangeable in common
usage with "sound man" or "sound guy."

Yes, this is not legal in Virginia. The Society of Broadcast Engineers is
currently petitioning the state to make an SBE certification or an old FCC
First Phone License a legal identification to call yourself a broadcast
engineer, however.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I won't be making that mistake
again.

I have had folks get into big trouble with it when bidding for state
contracts.

To be honest, I don't know why I didn't think about that before. I don't
call my professors "Doctor" unless they've earned that degree.

"You can call me doctor, but you'd be wrong because I have a Master's
degree. You can call me professor but you'd be wrong there too because
I'm a lecturer. So call me Colonel."
-- Col. Pasafiume

People get touchy about these kinds of things.
--scott

No joke, there.

I'm not big into titles myself, but if someone earned it, that's how I'm
addressing them unless they tell me otherwise.

Simple matter of respecting the work involved.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[David Looser]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or acted
a consultant, that type of thing.

I just love that!, "you think perhaps". Would anyone employ you as a
consultant if you *didn't* have qualifications? As for "writing a book",
well anyone can "write a book", what does it prove?

Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.

I've just had a look at their website (having never heard of them before). I
see nothing there that suggests they have the authority to confer Chartered
Engineer status.

I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need formal
qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?

The days when someone could become a professional engineer simply by
"learning on the job" are well and truly past.

David.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arkansan Raider wrote:
It's been my experience that the guy pushing faders is generically
called the "sound engineer," and that is fully interchangeable in common
usage with "sound man" or "sound guy."


I dunno where that expression came from and as a 'sound guy' I still
dislike it. Think it started in the record industry.

To me, engineering is where they fix things or actually design the nuts
and bolts of an installation, etc. A totally separate area - although of
course there are overlaps.

I prefer the generic title of operator. As I use equipment - not
basically design or repair it. Of course you may have to do front line
repairs and hopefully have an input to the design. But as a secondary
function.

And before anyone starts I have the highest regard for the engineers I
work with 'keeping the show on the road' And of course any operator will
likely get better results if he has basic knowledge of the equipment he
uses - as indeed must an engineer of how it is used if designing or
repairing, etc.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arkansan Raider]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arkansan Raider wrote:
It's been my experience that the guy pushing faders is generically
called the "sound engineer," and that is fully interchangeable in common
usage with "sound man" or "sound guy."


I dunno where that expression came from and as a 'sound guy' I still
dislike it. Think it started in the record industry.

To me, engineering is where they fix things or actually design the nuts
and bolts of an installation, etc. A totally separate area - although of
course there are overlaps.

I prefer the generic title of operator. As I use equipment - not
basically design or repair it. Of course you may have to do front line
repairs and hopefully have an input to the design. But as a secondary
function.

And before anyone starts I have the highest regard for the engineers I
work with 'keeping the show on the road' And of course any operator will
likely get better results if he has basic knowledge of the equipment he
uses - as indeed must an engineer of how it is used if designing or
repairing, etc.


Outstanding post, Dave.

---Jeff

[Les Cargill]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or acted
a consultant, that type of thing.

I just love that!, "you think perhaps". Would anyone employ you as a
consultant if you *didn't* have qualifications? As for "writing a book",
well anyone can "write a book", what does it prove?
Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.

I've just had a look at their website (having never heard of them before). I
see nothing there that suggests they have the authority to confer Chartered
Engineer status.

I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need formal
qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?

The days when someone could become a professional engineer simply by
"learning on the job" are well and truly past.

David.



Meh? I don't think so. You understudy another PE ( in a
discipline) for a year, then take a test in the discipline.

The BS degree just helps HR sort resumes...

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

Meh? I don't think so. You understudy another PE ( in a
discipline) for a year, then take a test in the discipline.

The problem with the PE test for many years was that it was not specific
to any discipline and was in fact very heavy on mechanics and civil
engineering stuff. So if you were an electrical engineer and wanted to
work as a PE, you had to take a test on truss loads and steam pressures.

I am told that these days the test has been broken up somewhat and that
there is now a specific EE option, although folks from other engineering
disciplines (anything from textile or ceramic engineering to aero) still
have to calculate soil erosion.

The BS degree just helps HR sort resumes...

Yes, and the BS degree is worth more than the PE in a lot of cases.
So while in theory you could cram for the PE and pass it without a
degree, it wouldn't be all that easy to get a job that way.

The guy who does my contract work, though, never got a law degree.
He apprenticed with a lawyer back in the fifties, studied a lot,
and passed the bar exam. That's not very common today but it used
to be very common a century ago.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or acted
a consultant, that type of thing.

I just love that!, "you think perhaps".

Yes.

Would anyone employ you as a
consultant if you *didn't* have qualifications?

I'd much prefer that they had experience of doing the job I had in mind.

As for "writing a book",
well anyone can "write a book", what does it prove?

I should have spelled it out for you. The book would have to be cognate,
and thereby act in lieu of formal qualifications (such as a degree).

Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.

I've just had a look at their website (having never heard of them before). I
see nothing there that suggests they have the authority to confer Chartered
Engineer status.


I'm going to have to go quite slowly in future! I used the phrase 'not
really related', and thought it might be of interest in a general
discussion about qualifications on an audio NG.

I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need formal
qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?


No. I'm not sure what makes you ask that question.

The days when someone could become a professional engineer simply by
"learning on the job" are well and truly past.


If attitudes like yours prevail, then yes.

Rob

[David Looser]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or
acted a consultant, that type of thing.

I just love that!, "you think perhaps".

Yes.

Would anyone employ you as a
consultant if you *didn't* have qualifications?

I'd much prefer that they had experience of doing the job I had in mind.

They need both. Of course nobody will employ you as a consultant straight
out of uni. But you aren't going to be able to do the job (to gain that
experience) until you have the necessary theoretical knowledge.

As for "writing a book",
well anyone can "write a book", what does it prove?

I should have spelled it out for you. The book would have to be cognate,
and thereby act in lieu of formal qualifications (such as a degree).

Again, just as with the consultancy you'd need to have a deep knowledge of
the subject before any book you wrote would carry the sort of credibility
needed for that. And deep knowledge starts with learning the existing state
of the art. The self-taught aren't going to have that.

Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.

I've just had a look at their website (having never heard of them
before). I see nothing there that suggests they have the authority to
confer Chartered Engineer status.


I'm going to have to go quite slowly in future! I used the phrase 'not
really related', and thought it might be of interest in a general
discussion about qualifications on an audio NG.

We were talking about chartered status, why mention a body that cannot award
chartered status?

I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need
formal qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?


No. I'm not sure what makes you ask that question.

Because the only people in the army without formal qualifications are the
squadies.

The days when someone could become a professional engineer simply by
"learning on the job" are well and truly past.


If attitudes like yours prevail, then yes.

Whilst I guess from your attitude that you'd be happy to be operated on by
an unqualified surgeon, travel in an airliner flown by a self-taught pilot
and be defended in court by someone who learned his law from a book bought
in a second-hand book shop.

These days formal training is a necessary preliminary to employment in *any*
profession. And that includes engineering.

David.

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
To become a chartered engineer, you'd need to demonstrate a number of
competencies. Formal qualifications are one, but not the only, way to
demonstrate some of them. I think perhaps if you'd written a book or
acted a consultant, that type of thing.
I just love that!, "you think perhaps".
Yes.

Would anyone employ you as a
consultant if you *didn't* have qualifications?
I'd much prefer that they had experience of doing the job I had in mind.

They need both. Of course nobody will employ you as a consultant straight
out of uni. But you aren't going to be able to do the job (to gain that
experience) until you have the necessary theoretical knowledge.
As for "writing a book",
well anyone can "write a book", what does it prove?
I should have spelled it out for you. The book would have to be cognate,
and thereby act in lieu of formal qualifications (such as a degree).

Again, just as with the consultancy you'd need to have a deep knowledge of
the subject before any book you wrote would carry the sort of credibility
needed for that. And deep knowledge starts with learning the existing state
of the art. The self-taught aren't going to have that.

Quite. But and and, you don't need a formal qualification to do that.
You can be self-taught. I'd stress this is IME and it just seems obvious.

Where I work 3 of the senior academic staff in our team of 9 have no
relevant first degree, and no higher degree. One of them published 8
peer reviewed papers last year. The other is leading consultant (or at
least was, apparently). The other is normal, er, like me (apart from the
senior bit, obviously).

Not really related, I've just had a look at the Institute of Sound and
Communications Engineers - absence of quals is not a bar to membership.
I've just had a look at their website (having never heard of them
before). I see nothing there that suggests they have the authority to
confer Chartered Engineer status.

I'm going to have to go quite slowly in future! I used the phrase 'not
really related', and thought it might be of interest in a general
discussion about qualifications on an audio NG.

We were talking about chartered status, why mention a body that cannot award
chartered status?

I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you wouldn't need
formal qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?

No. I'm not sure what makes you ask that question.

Because the only people in the army without formal qualifications are the
squadies.

OK, I didn't know that. Seems stupid to me.

The days when someone could become a professional engineer simply by
"learning on the job" are well and truly past.

If attitudes like yours prevail, then yes.

Whilst I guess from your attitude that you'd be happy to be operated on by
an unqualified surgeon, travel in an airliner flown by a self-taught pilot
and be defended in court by someone who learned his law from a book bought
in a second-hand book shop.


I'd rather they be experienced and good at what they do.

Of course, and your point I think, is that they won't tend to be in that
position unless they have a professional qualification, and that will
tend to involve a formal qualification.

These days formal training is a necessary preliminary to employment in *any*
profession. And that includes engineering.


What I'm trying to get across is that while the qualification is
necessary, it isn't always, or even often, sufficient.

It'd be nice if you could wash yourself of 'necessary'. When I left
school I worked in a surveying office. After a while they let me loose
and I was out doing surveys, which were then signed off by a chartered
surveyor who'd never seen the building/land.

Of course, having a qualification helps. But it doesn't necessarily mean
you can do whatever you're qualified to do any better than someone with
lesser or no qualifications.

R

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Of course, having a qualification helps. But it doesn't necessarily mean
you can do whatever you're qualified to do any better than someone with
lesser or no qualifications.

Absolutely. By nature any qualification may give the basics of a job but
lags behind actual practice.

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[David Looser]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:

Again, just as with the consultancy you'd need to have a deep knowledge
of the subject before any book you wrote would carry the sort of
credibility needed for that. And deep knowledge starts with learning the
existing state of the art. The self-taught aren't going to have that.

Quite. But and and, you don't need a formal qualification to do that. You
can be self-taught. I'd stress this is IME and it just seems obvious.

Being self-taught was all fine and dandy in the past when things were
simpler than today. But science and engineering these days are so complex
that becoming a recognised authority purely through being self-taught is a
bit of a non-starter except, perhaps, for the rare true geniuses of this
world. Whilst I can see that in theory a self-taught genius could write a
book of such quality that it stands in lieu of formal qualifications I'm not
aware of any such book written in the last 50 years in electrical
engineering by somebody who did not already have formal qualifications in
the subject.

As far as chartered engineer status is concerned I'm not aware of any
awarding body that doesn't demand both relevant qualifications and proven
experience before conferring the title.

Where I work 3 of the senior academic staff in our team of 9 have no
relevant first degree, and no higher degree. One of them published 8 peer
reviewed papers last year. The other is leading consultant (or at least
was, apparently). The other is normal, er, like me (apart from the senior
bit, obviously).


I am surprised. In my experience the world of academia is even more keen on
formal qualifications than industry is. Senior academics usually have
doctorates. But not all disciplines are equal and I don't know which
discipline you are talking about.


What I'm trying to get across is that while the qualification is
necessary, it isn't always, or even often, sufficient.

I never suggested it was. For anyone starting out on a career in engineering
the formal qualifications are merely the start.

It'd be nice if you could wash yourself of 'necessary'. When I left school
I worked in a surveying office. After a while they let me loose and I was
out doing surveys, which were then signed off by a chartered surveyor
who'd never seen the building/land.

In other words you were an apprentice (even if you weren't called that);
that was the way things used to be done in many trades, though not in the
professions where having formal education first has long been considered
necessary.

Of course, having a qualification helps. But it doesn't necessarily mean
you can do whatever you're qualified to do any better than someone with
lesser or no qualifications.

Perhaps in theory. Science and engineering is built on the considerable body
of knowledge created by those who went before. So unless you want every
practitioner to have to re-invent the discipline for himself it is necessary
to do a considerable amount of book-work before you can even begin to gain
experience, and this is far more easily done in an institution where
teaching and guidance are on offer than trying to do the whole thing
unaided.

And personally I'm glad that my local hospital only employs doctors who have
actually been taught medicine and examined on their knowledge and I would
still far rather travel in a plane piloted by someone who had actually been
trained to fly it.

David.


David.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Scott Dorsey
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Wally
wrote:
Powell wrote:

Allthough the sonic effects of spikes may vary from speaker to
speaker and from room to room, they do move the resonnance of the
speaker-floor combo up in frequency. Sometimes it improves overall
sound, sometimes it doesn't. But the effects have a very natural
explanation.

Care to explain the mechanism that causes the resonant frequency to
move up?

FWIW I decided not to comment on the bulk of the items asserted most
recently as I didn't want to widen the issues. But a number of
questions like the above did occur to me. The problem is that with no
measurements, details of experimental arrangements, etc, it is often
hard to assess the assertions people make.

I believe that Mr. Powell is a troll.

I can't say that I am astonished to be told that. :-)

However, I do suggest looking at
the following:

1. A system with two masses, one very large and one very small, which
are loosely coupled by a flexible joint.

2. A system with two masses, one very large and one very small, which
are more tightly coupled.

If the masses are the same in these two examples, and you look at the
response to excitation of the smaller mass, what happens to the main
resonance as the coupling is increased? Hint: both the resonant
frequency and the Q are changed.

This stuff is easy to model as a two mass spring system, in the simplest
cases. --scott

I agree with some provisos. The snags in applying that to the assertions
made by Powell seem many and various. Mainly due to the combination of
'vague and sweeping' and 'ambiguous' as features of his assertions, plus a
series of apparent muddles like using 'mass' when he perhaps meant
something else, etc. Does he not know that 'concrete' and 'wood' both come
with wide ranges in their mechanical/acoustic properties? And so on...

They key one for your comments though is, Are the 'spikes' either '1' or
'2' where the 'speaker set down on the same substrate with no spikes' the
other? Or do the two specific situations you describe not accurately
reflect comparing spikes with simply sitting on a floor? ... or a carpeted
floor? And how do you then establish any of this has any audible
significance? Is it the case that only the simple 'two masses with a
spring' longitudinal vibration matters here? Or do none of these things
matter at all?

Of course, you or I can guess which choice above is more plausible, and may
well be right. But we then need data to see if our surmise stands up in
practice. if you look around consumer audio you see all kinds of claims
made, presented in apparently technical language and seeming quite
plausible... until you start asking if they really make sense. :-)

So yes, you can model things. But you do need to be able to choose
appropriate parameter values to do so. And establish your model is the
relevant one for producing conclusions about what is relevant in real
applications.

Also, what kind of mode(s) of vibration is he talking about? Vertical
longitundinal? Rocking? Or various other possibilities. Again, that would
affect the choice of model.

Hence the need for some actual measurements to establish the relevant
parameter values which would then be used to verify the model against
observations.

I don't know the answers here, even if you or I could make good guesses.
But I have read enough to realise that people make conflicting assertions,
and then don't present checkable evidence in the form of measurements
*plus* a decent description of how those measurements were obtained.

Alas, lacking these things it is easy for people to be mislead by what
seems plausible given only what is asserted. A nice example of this is
something I looked at a few years ago. I put the results at

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...eshift/cp.html

if anyone is interested.

It shows how a series of published articles presented 'evidence' for a
radical discovery which would be quite significant... if true.

I had doubts that so many EEs any physicists over the years had missed
something so obvious. So I looked carefully at what they'd done. This was
hard as some of the critical details were only quite tiny features in their
diagrams. But the outcome was that their results were consistent with a
simple flaw in their measurement arrangements.

FWIW I keep resisting the temptation to do similar examinations of various
other sets of 'data and claims' I find. But I may give in shortly... it is
fun. 8-] However I can't do this when the person(s) making the claims
avoid giving any data or details of how it was obtained, though. I can then
only proceed on the basis of being cautious of being expected to accept
whatever I've been told simply because the person expects that.

TBH my real regret is that a journal like the JAES does not have any
interest in publishing such 'forensic analysis' on some of the claims
people make and the 'data' they sometimes present. No doubt it would annoy
some people, though. ;-

Slainte,

Jim


--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
snip

As far as chartered engineer status is concerned I'm not aware of any
awarding body that doesn't demand both relevant qualifications and proven
experience before conferring the title.

Blimey David, this isn't difficult. Have a look at p.12 of the C.Eng
competency standard. These are examples of non-formal qualifications
that can count in lieu of accredited degrees: Writing a technical
report, based upon their experience, and demonstrating their knowledge
and understanding of engineering principles; Following an assessed
work-based learning
programme.

If I've got this right the Engineering Council confers the 'Chartered'
bit, and accredits (that is, gives full exemption from written quals),
or recognises (partial exemption) awards. Then there's an element of
practical experience that EC UK prescribes. I'm applying this principle
from my experience - RTPI, CIH, RICS.



Where I work 3 of the senior academic staff in our team of 9 have no
relevant first degree, and no higher degree. One of them published 8 peer
reviewed papers last year. The other is leading consultant (or at least
was, apparently). The other is normal, er, like me (apart from the senior
bit, obviously).


I am surprised. In my experience the world of academia is even more keen on
formal qualifications than industry is. Senior academics usually have
doctorates. But not all disciplines are equal and I don't know which
discipline you are talking about.


I'd have thought in natural sciences you're right. I work in applied
social science in a new university. Maybe a quarter have PhDs. None of
our academic professors have a PhD. I have my own opinion about this
that I suspect is scarily close to your own :-;


What I'm trying to get across is that while the qualification is
necessary, it isn't always, or even often, sufficient.

I never suggested it was. For anyone starting out on a career in engineering
the formal qualifications are merely the start.

It'd be nice if you could wash yourself of 'necessary'. When I left school
I worked in a surveying office. After a while they let me loose and I was
out doing surveys, which were then signed off by a chartered surveyor
who'd never seen the building/land.

In other words you were an apprentice (even if you weren't called that);
that was the way things used to be done in many trades, though not in the
professions where having formal education first has long been considered
necessary.

Ah, OK - we can differ on what counts as a profession. I assume
therefore you don't count surveying, law, teaching, planning and
accountancy as 'professions'. But you do count flying. And architecture.
This isn't working, is it?

I'd take it you spit at the mention of 'professional footballer' :-)

Of course, having a qualification helps. But it doesn't necessarily mean
you can do whatever you're qualified to do any better than someone with
lesser or no qualifications.

Perhaps in theory. Science and engineering is built on the considerable body
of knowledge created by those who went before. So unless you want every
practitioner to have to re-invent the discipline for himself it is necessary
to do a considerable amount of book-work before you can even begin to gain
experience, and this is far more easily done in an institution where
teaching and guidance are on offer than trying to do the whole thing
unaided.


Wouldn't argue with that.

We have processes called APL/APCL/APEL - accreditation for prior
certificated/experiential learning. It's commonly accepted that in a lot
of cases it's actually easier (and in some cases cheaper) to do the
qualification than jump through the accreditation hoops. But I'd stress
that I think this system is flawed - it forces a huge measure of
compliance with institutional practice.


And personally I'm glad that my local hospital only employs doctors who have
actually been taught medicine and examined on their knowledge and I would
still far rather travel in a plane piloted by someone who had actually been
trained to fly it.


Yes, of course. Back to 'washing' - it doesn't make them good doctors or
pilots.

Rob

[Wecan do it]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
ng.com...
I would have thought that to be a Royal Engineer you
wouldn't need formal qualifications - don't know though.

You think they are all squadies?

The days when someone could become a professional engineer
simply by "learning on the job" are well and truly past.

David.



Meh? I don't think so. You understudy another PE ( in a
discipline) for a year, then take a test in the discipline.

The BS degree just helps HR sort resumes...

--
Les Cargill


Not quite so simple. I am an Electrical PE and this is what it
takes now a days.

1. must graduate from an ABET accredited school and
curriculum.
2. must pass the fundamentals of engineering exam (8hrs open
book multiple choice)
3. must have two years work experience in the field of license
4. must present multiple endorsements from registered
professional engineers who have reviewed your work
5. must pass 2nd 8 hr test. Mine had 24 questions and I had to
answer 8 of them. Open book, calculators allowed , all work
and assumptions shown, hand graded.
6. too keep the license you must complete 12 professional
development hours of education each year and keep the
license(s) for every state you are licensed in current.
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/

peace
dawg P.E.

ps: There is no PE for a sound guy.

[Wecan do it]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:

Meh? I don't think so. You understudy another PE ( in a
discipline) for a year, then take a test in the discipline.

The problem with the PE test for many years was that it was
not specific
to any discipline and was in fact very heavy on mechanics
and civil
engineering stuff. So if you were an electrical engineer
and wanted to
work as a PE, you had to take a test on truss loads and
steam pressures.

Not in the USA at least for the past 28 years as I have been
licensed. In fact now there are actually three subcatigories
of Electrical. Computer, Power and Electronics. Fortunatly I
grandfather into all three.
http://www.ncees.org/exams/professio...ical_exams.php




I am told that these days the test has been broken up
somewhat and that
there is now a specific EE option, although folks from other
engineering
disciplines (anything from textile or ceramic engineering to
aero) still
have to calculate soil erosion.

The BS degree just helps HR sort resumes...

Yes, and the BS degree is worth more than the PE in a lot of
cases.
So while in theory you could cram for the PE and pass it
without a
degree, it wouldn't be all that easy to get a job that way.

Being alowed to take licensure exams without graduating from
and ABET accredited curriculum has not been allowed for over
40 years. When the first licenses were given in 1966 perhaps,
but today there is no way to get your PE without going through
the process. Most people graduating in engineering now-a-days
do not peruse a PE. Fresh graduates taking the electrical FE
pass at 63%. Only 63% of first time PE takers pass. These are
people who have degrees and work experience and PE
endorsements and have passed the FE. This is not an easy test.
I could not pass it today without some big time cramming at
least.



The guy who does my contract work, though, never got a law
degree.
He apprenticed with a lawyer back in the fifties, studied a
lot,
and passed the bar exam. That's not very common today but
it used
to be very common a century ago.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Wecan do it]

"Rob" wrote in message
news:si6mm.73140 What I'm trying to get across is that while
the qualification is
necessary, it isn't always, or even often, sufficient.

It'd be nice if you could wash yourself of 'necessary'. When
I left school I worked in a surveying office. After a while
they let me loose and I was out doing surveys, which were
then signed off by a chartered surveyor who'd never seen the
building/land.

In the USA this is called "plan checking" It is illegal and
subjects the licensed party (surveyors are licensed by the
professional engineering boards in USA) to disciplinary action
by the board and could result in criminal liability is someone
is hurt because of your negligence.



Of course, having a qualification helps. But it doesn't
necessarily mean you can do whatever you're qualified to do
any better than someone with lesser or no qualifications.

R

peace
dawg p.e.

[Arkansan Raider]

Wecan do it wrote:

ps: There is no PE for a sound guy.



LOL

Roger that.

So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?

I've always wanted to spend the time and money for a degree so I can
pour someone's coffee... ;^)


---Jeff

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Rob
wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message



I am surprised. In my experience the world of academia is even more
keen on formal qualifications than industry is. Senior academics
usually have doctorates. But not all disciplines are equal and I
don't know which discipline you are talking about.


I'd have thought in natural sciences you're right. I work in applied
social science in a new university. Maybe a quarter have PhDs. None of
our academic professors have a PhD. I have my own opinion about this
that I suspect is scarily close to your own :-;

FWIW In my experience it has become quite rare in the UK for a permanent
employed Uni academic in Physics or Engineering to not have a PhD. I have
worked with one or two exceptions, though. Indeed, when I was first
employed as a fixed-term 'postdoc' at Uni I didn't have a PhD so got that
later on. So people are sometimes employed in such roles on the basis of
relevant experience and aptitude judged in some other ways. :-)

Mind you, the Prof who ran that group is both an outstanding
scientist/engineer and a real gentleman.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html