Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod

[James Harris]

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.)

Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
effect.

An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
are fairly lightweight.

Any ideas?

James

[James Harris]

On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris > 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.)


> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).


> I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
> fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
> is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
> effect.


> An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
> speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
> more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
> perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
> are fairly lightweight.


> Any ideas?

Widening the net a little....

James

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article
>,
James
Harris > wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris > 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.)

I'd agree that three spikes are rather more practical than four. But afraid
I don't know of any kits for the below.

> > I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
> > fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
> > is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much effect.


> > An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
> > speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
> > more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
> > perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
> > are fairly lightweight.

TBH I have my doubts about such 'slabs' under 'spikes' being of much use.
Have a look at http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cones/speak.html to see why I
have doubts about that. You might be better with a layer of something
squidgy like 'Blu Tak' between speaker and a heavy slab. Or just don't
bother. I've missed the previous parts of the thread is this is the first
posting on this thread I've seen, so I wonder why you think the 'spikes'
are desirable at all...


> > Any ideas?

> Widening the net a little....

Open the window wider and.... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT), James Harris
> 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.)
>
>
>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

I don't understand spikes. Audiophiles talk about coupling and
arrange heavy lumps of stone to couple to. But then they minimise
that coupling by restricting it to three or four points!

Perhaps the spikes are merely so you CAN adjust the speaker to stand
level on a concrete floor?

My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
wall or floor.

[GeoSynch]

James Harris 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.)

Why do you want to move them around so much? Take the spikes off, experiment
with positioning the speakers for a week or two. When you're satisfied they're
optimally placed, put the spikes back on and leave them on and be done with it.

[Brian Gaff]

I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
them over.


Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"James Harris" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris > 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.)
>
>
>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).
>
>
>> I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
>> fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
>> is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
>> effect.
>
>
>> An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
>> speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
>> more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
>> perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
>> are fairly lightweight.
>
>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Widening the net a little....
>
> James

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> wrote:

>I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
>them over.

By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
the ideal? :-)

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Brian Gaff" > wrote in message
om...
>I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
>wobble them over.


Wobbling over has nothing to do with the number of points of support but is
to do with the geometric relationship between the various points of support
and the speaker's centre of mass/gravity/momentum - pick whichever takes yer
fancy....

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> > wrote:
>
>>I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
>>wobble
>>them over.
>
> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
> the ideal? :-)



What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

[Keith G[_2_]]

"James Harris" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris > 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.)
>
>
>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).
>
>
>> I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
>> fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
>> is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
>> effect.
>
>
>> An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
>> speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
>> more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
>> perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
>> are fairly lightweight.
>
>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Widening the net a little....
>
> James



IIRC, WW Greener's formula was that the projectile to be fired from a rifle
should not exceed that of 1/96th of the rifle's total weight (mass?) -
whether a speaker would need coupling to a firm foundation would depend upon
its overall weight (mass?) I suspect....

[Adrian C]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:21 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> > wrote:
>
>> I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
>> them over.
>
> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
> the ideal? :-)

O yes, it has to be gold plated, have directionality marks for gravity,
cosmic and magnetic influence, machined to 1 thou of nothing, made in a
total vacuum - and have an impressive price. Probably needs degaussing
regulary ...

--
Adrian C

[Richard Lamont]

James Harris wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 11:32, James Harris > 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.)
>
>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).

The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Brian Gaff > wrote:
> I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to
> wobble them over.

Wouldn't they be banned totally, then, since they're more likely to make a
floor speaker topple than without? ;-)

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
> wrote:

>> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
>> the ideal? :-)
>
>
>
>What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???

The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
you think they're for?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Lamont
> wrote:

>What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
>sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
>building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
>underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

What's the "speaker"? The drive unit? That plus the box it's in?
That plus the room it's in?

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" > wrote


> The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
> through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
> random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.
>
> Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
> They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.
>
> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.


I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes on
speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker to
be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the ability of
the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone movements which some
claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created sound.

The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment about WW
Greener's formula....

[Paul P[_3_]]

Richard Lamont wrote:

> The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
> through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
> random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.

Agreed.

> Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
> They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.

As I understand things, mechanical isolation is exactly what spikes
do. Maybe they can transmit some high frequencies but I don't see
them able to transmit low frequencies since the point of the cone
would have to vibrate at those frequencies. If the point is on
something rigid, like a slab of something, it's not going to move
much.

> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.

I can see low frequencies moving quite easily through neoprene and
carpet.

Paul P

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
> > wrote:
>
>>> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
>>> the ideal? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???
>
> The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
> know why.


OK, not what I understand the word to mean....


Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
> you think they're for?


Couple, of course - what would be the point of 'decoupling' unless you were
talking about a record deck and one lived directly over the Underground...??

[Richard Lamont]

Keith G wrote:
>
> "Richard Lamont" > wrote
>
>
>> The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
>> through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
>> random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.
>>
>> Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
>> They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.
>>
>> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
>> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
>> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
>> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.
>
> I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes
> on speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
> squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker
> to be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the
> ability of the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone
> movements which some claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created sound.

As the mass of the cone is so much less than the mass of the speaker
cabinet as a whole, this is surely idiotic. Besides, any such reaction
will also occur during manufacturer's testing and will therefore be
taken into account at the design stage.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Richard Lamont]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:39:28 +0100, Richard Lamont
> > wrote:
>
>> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
>> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
>> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
>> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.
>
> What's the "speaker"? The drive unit? That plus the box it's in?
> That plus the room it's in?

The box, obviously.

--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Richard Lamont]

Paul P wrote:

> As I understand things, mechanical isolation is exactly what spikes
> do. Maybe they can transmit some high frequencies but I don't see
> them able to transmit low frequencies since the point of the cone
> would have to vibrate at those frequencies. If the point is on
> something rigid, like a slab of something, it's not going to move
> much.

Rigid materials provide mechanical coupling. I don't understand how
being pointy would make any difference. Squidgy materials have 'give'
that attenuates the coupling.

It's a basic matter of mechanical engineering, not unique to audio.
Every anti-vibration device I've seen involved things like rubber and
maybe springs, but never spikes.

>> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
>> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
>> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
>> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.
>
> I can see low frequencies moving quite easily through neoprene and
> carpet.

But not as easily as through a rigid object, whatever its shape.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

Point proved, I think!

One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
"speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.

Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Audiophle logic.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Lamont" > wrote
>>
>>
>>> The sound is supposed to come in a straight line from the speaker,
>>> through the air, to your lugholes. It is not supposed to go via some
>>> random scenic route involving whatever your loudspeaker is parked on.
>>>
>>> Therefore your speakers should not be mechanically coupled to anything.
>>> They should be mechanically isolated. Spikes are audiophool nonsense.
>>>
>>> What you need is a nice thick sheet of neoprene rubber instead. Then the
>>> sound will come from your speakers and not from whichever bits of your
>>> building happen to radiate the coupled vibration. If you have carpet and
>>> underlay then the neoprene probably isn't necessary.
>>
>> I think you are missing the point entirely - the purpose of the spikes
>> on speakers it to enable them to be pushed through a carpet or any other
>> squidgy floorcovering (like you are recommending) to enable the speaker
>> to be coupled directly to the floor underneath and remove/reduce the
>> ability of the speaker to move in reaction (recoil) to the cone
>> movements which some claim 'blurs/renders less accurate' the created
>> sound.
>
> As the mass of the cone is so much less than the mass of the speaker
> cabinet as a whole, this is surely idiotic. Besides, any such reaction
> will also occur during manufacturer's testing and will therefore be
> taken into account at the design stage.


You snipped the best bit:

"The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment about WW
Greener's formula...."

Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!

Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

FWIW, I have 6 pairs of speakers on the go here and only one of them is
spiked - and that pair is on stands which are filled with lead shot and
which have spikes through to the concrete floor (three of them each -
triangular). Here's a quick snap:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

(I have still not yet got round to sticking the speakers down with Blu Tack
after some six months!! :-)

[Richard Lamont]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> Point proved, I think!
>
> One person thinks spikes couple. Another thinks they decouple.
> Someone else wants to consider the box containing the drivers (the
> "speaker") separately from the room it's heard in.
>
> Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
> cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
> I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?
>
> Audiophle logic.

In the context of the thread, in which the speaker was the thing being
put on spikes or a neoprene mat, clearly "speaker" referred to the box.

Clearly room acoustics and interaction between the room and the speaker
are important, but that doesn't justify conflating the terminology so
that "speaker" is defined as including the room.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:05:13 +0100, Adrian C >
wrote:

>>> I think the reason for four was health and safety actually, harder to wobble
>>> them over.
>>
>> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
>> the ideal? :-)
>
>O yes, it has to be gold plated, have directionality marks for gravity,
>cosmic and magnetic influence, machined to 1 thou of nothing, made in a
>total vacuum - and have an impressive price. Probably needs degaussing
>regulary ...

So this drawing pin won't do?

[Richard Lamont]

Keith G wrote:

> You snipped the best bit:
>
> "The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
> wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do with
> it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
> about WW
> Greener's formula...."
>
> Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!
>
> Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:

1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker
4. Homeopathy
5. Speaker spikes

(It might be a while.)

> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT), James Harris
> 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.)
>>
>>
>>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It would have
>>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want to modify the
>>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).
>
>I don't understand spikes. Audiophiles talk about coupling and
>arrange heavy lumps of stone to couple to. But then they minimise
>that coupling by restricting it to three or four points!

I first heard of spikes and it had solid reasoning as used on rugs on wood floors.
For cement, you need another medium to convert, like using a piece
of soft pine under each spike on top of the cement. The spike will auto level,
and provide a better impedance match of the mechanical system
That would not work either for some speakers at loud volume, and the speaker
will start to walk. Some rubber would healp that scenereo.


greg


>
>Perhaps the spikes are merely so you CAN adjust the speaker to stand
>level on a concrete floor?
>
>My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
>anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
>better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
>wall or floor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
> Some would put a record deck on an absorbent mat. Some on wooden
> cones then on a glass shelf then on more cones, or maybe spikes. But
> I think they'd all leave the deck's suspended sub-chassis alone?

Garrard 301, etc, had no suspension and some mounted them in concrete. ;-)

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Richard Lamont" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>
>> You snipped the best bit:
>>
>> "The usual comment is 'tighten up the bass' (treble not affected) and I
>> wouldn't argue with it, but I think the speaker's mass has a lot to do
>> with
>> it irrespective of the floorcovering and is why I posted my comment
>> about WW
>> Greener's formula...."
>>
>> Note the 'I wouldn't argue with it' bit!
>>
>> Try it yourself is all I can say - and post the results here.
>
> Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:
>


Good fellow - too many *theorists* here....



> 1. Astrology
> 2. Magic healing crystals
> 3. Green CD marker
> 4. Homeopathy
> 5. Speaker spikes
>
> (It might be a while.)


So move it up the list.....


>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg
>
> Is that grey amp a Gerry Wells special?


No, it's a 'Keith Garratt probably not too special' - but I like it!!

;-)

Better pic here:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/IMFandothers.JPG

(Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
*trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:11 +0100, "Keith G"
> wrote:
>
>>> By audiophile reasoning, would just ONE spike, perfectly balanced, be
>>> the ideal? :-)
>>
>>What do you mean by 'audiophile'...???
>
>The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
>know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
>you think they're for?

You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote


> Better pic here:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/IMFandothers.JPG
>
> (Different pix taken of different kit at different times - when I wuz
> *trying stuff out* for myself!! ;-)


Actually that pic has much to tell:

Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made from
kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly stuck
to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best bass
and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!

(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and will
try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or not that
really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on top of
speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are* somewhere handy
to put stuff!!


*were - I've thinned down a lot now!

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
>>know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
>>you think they're for?
>
>You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
>decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
>you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
>on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).


Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
you WANTED them to do.

This can't be right. What DID you mean?

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
>>>know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
>>>you think they're for?
>>
>>You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
>>decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
>>you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
>>on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
>
>
>Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
>decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
>you WANTED them to do.
>
>This can't be right. What DID you mean?

Another thing, if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, and
the speaker is still, the floor will make the speaker shake.

greg

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote


> Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
> stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
> will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere),


OK, that wasn't actually too hard:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/0002.JPG

Incidentally, those speakers are a pair of Cyburg's Needles I built and sent
to him over in Brussels. He loves them, but they ain't ever gonna sound any
good out in the room like in the pic - contrary to what someone said here
recently, they need to be flat back against a wall or other large, flat
surface for bass reinforcement....

.....when they will sound incredibly good with a crystal clear yet rich 'full
sound' which totally belies the little 2 inch, cheapo 'car speaker' Viston
drive units!!

(I got a pair here in constant use on this computer and the radio and they
are superb - people look for the subwoofer!! :-)

But enough of that - that's history now...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
> stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
> will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or
> not that really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on
> top of speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are*
> somewhere handy to put stuff!!

Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some makers
take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think the first to
do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be mounted on an open
stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet - like putting books on
top - would negate the design theory.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:17 +0100, "Keith G"
> wrote:

>Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made from
>kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
>(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
>extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly stuck
>to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
>can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best bass
>and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!
>
>(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
>suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)

So what characteristics does the Technics have to compensate for its
*by far* inferior bass and clarity?

One deck is close to a speaker, another is actually on top of one! Of
course THOSE decks never feed THAT speaker?

Are the speakers you actually listen to cramped against walls and
other equipment in that way? Do they sound different/better given a
bit more space to work in?

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, Laurence Payne
> > wrote:
>>On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>>The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
>>>>know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
>>>>you think they're for?
>>>
>>>You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
>>>decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
>>>you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
>>>on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
>>
>>
>>Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
>>decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
>>you WANTED them to do.
>>
>>This can't be right. What DID you mean?
>
>Another thing, if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, and
>the speaker is still, the floor will make the speaker shake.


Another thought, when the floor is vibrating, its likely not
to be in phase with the speaker output, and it will be frequency dependant.
At least this tend to stabilize the frequency slewing.

What am I talking about?? !!


greg

[David Looser]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
>
> My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
> anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
> better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
> wall or floor.

At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of the
cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
well.

David.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> Note also the weight on top of the speaker cabinets - have a friend who
>> stacks books on top of his speakers to eradicate cabinet resonances and
>> will try to find a pic (I know I've got one somewhere), but whether or
>> not that really wotks isn't important: my reason for heaping things on
>> top of speakers is simply lack of space and the speaker tops are*
>> somewhere handy to put stuff!!
>
> Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some makers
> take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think the first to
> do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be mounted on an open
> stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet - like putting books on
> top - would negate the design theory.


The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed, apart from the
rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a lot of money and
maybe changing the speakers characteristics too much, in any case....

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:17 +0100, "Keith G"
> > wrote:
>
>>Note the record deck sits (without suspension) in a massive plinth made
>>from
>>kitchen worktop offcuts and sits on a two inch thick 'grano' paving slab
>>(painted black) on firm, rubber 'doorstop' feet. The 'hifi stand' with the
>>extra weight in it (valve amp and large SS power amp) is pretty firmly
>>stuck
>>to the ground (concrete floor under weedy/cheapskate bedroom carpet) and I
>>can quite definitely say the sound from that deck has *by far* the best
>>bass
>>and pin sharp clarity I have ever heard from any turntable!
>>
>>(That said, the other tt I use atm is a simple Technics deck with 'squidgy
>>suspension' built-in and I like that one just as much!)
>
> So what characteristics does the Technics have to compensate for its
> *by far* inferior bass and clarity?


Here's a little 'furry' pic of it (I'm into handheld/low-light MF atm):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Technics.JPG

Anyway, no idea - the AT moving coil cart probably helps...??


>
> One deck is close to a speaker, another is actually on top of one! Of
> course THOSE decks never feed THAT speaker?


Calm down, dear!

I have used decks parked on speakers before now but the deck in that pic was
just parked up. Trust me, I do like (very much) the sound I get from my
kit - or it'd be a damn sight different to wot it is, but I think you need
to free your mind off from a load of 'audiophile/anti-audiophile' prejudice
and misconceptions...


>
> Are the speakers you actually listen to cramped against walls and
> other equipment in that way? Do they sound different/better given a
> bit more space to work in?


So many questions! I bet you drove your parents mad when you were a kid!

I've lost track, if the speakers you refer to are the ones with the IMF in,
they're history - the speakers I've got and use atm are crammed in but not
against the wall and sound absolutely fine to me; whether you or anyone else
would agree is another thing, but that's not really germane....

Tell me summat, have you ever been in a secondhand record shop and asked the
owner to 'put a record on' to try it? They invariably have utterly mediocre
kit - 'mid-fi' Technics decks and amps; speakers with no name on - and the
sound is usually quite *exquisite*!! Similarly, the more junk and clutter in
my room, the better the sound, I find!!

(I remember once I got someone to listen with his eyes shut while I slowly
rotated one speaker until it was facing the wall - he had no idea what was
going on and said the sound was unaffected throughout!! ;-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:49:28 +0100, "David Looser"
> wrote:

>
>At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
>as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
>1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of the
>cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
>well.

Yup. And it probably got very loud with only a few watts input. If
we were prepared to let our speakers take up rather more space,
speaker design (and amp. power) could be very different :-)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

James Harris wrote:

>> Any ideas?

> Widening the net a little....

Spikes is a concept that seems woefully short of merit, while vibration
absorbers is known and described in the literature as efficient in terms of
reducing midrange coloration via secondary radiation from the floor.
Literature reference: accellerometer measuments made by Arne E. Jensen on
his 4433 and the floor they were located on and published in the danish
magazine High Fidelity around 1978 or so.

Poul Ladegaard took this a step further by demonstrating the additional
advantage in decoupling the (midrange) loudspeaker unit from the front
panel.

It would be most interestering if the spikists have similar accellorometer
measurements that document the advantage of spikes.

> James

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:07:49 +0100, "Keith G"
> wrote:

>(I remember once I got someone to listen with his eyes shut while I slowly
>rotated one speaker until it was facing the wall - he had no idea what was
>going on and said the sound was unaffected throughout!! ;-)

Yes, the Critical Distance for a given room/speaker combination is
often closer than you think! In PA applications sometimes it's
practically impossible to place the audience inside it.

Where's your hi-fi listening "sweet spot" in relation to the CD? In
any given room, the same for all speakers or not? When recording, I'm
used to monitoring well inside, but checking a mix from WAY outside -
like in the next room with the door shut!

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but doesn't really
>>>know why. Some say it's to "couple". Others to "decouple". What do
>>>you think they're for?
>>
>>You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a huge mass, or you can
>>decouple it from all (possibly resonant) masses. Either method works, and
>>you can measure whether it's working or not (or you can just put your hand
>>on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
>
>Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
>decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
>you WANTED them to do.
>
>This can't be right. What DID you mean?

It depends on what you do with the spikes and where you place them. The
original intention was to couple the speaker through a carpet to a solid
floor, so the floor and the speaker move as a system. But they can also be
used with a flexible material like a rubber pad to decouple the speakers from
the floor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

GregS > wrote:
>Another thing, if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, and
>the speaker is still, the floor will make the speaker shake.

Yes.
But if the floor is vibrating from the air vibrations, you have a more
serious problem than that. A common one, but serious nevertheless.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 24 Aug 2009 12:33:37 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
>>decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
>>you WANTED them to do.
>>
>>This can't be right. What DID you mean?
>
>It depends on what you do with the spikes and where you place them. The
>original intention was to couple the speaker through a carpet to a solid
>floor, so the floor and the speaker move as a system. But they can also be
>used with a flexible material like a rubber pad to decouple the speakers from
>the floor.

In the second case, why spikes? Why not just the rubber pad?

[Scott Dorsey]

David Looser > wrote:
>"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>
>> My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
>> anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
>> better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
>> wall or floor.
>
>At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
>as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
>1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of the
>cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
>well.

The corner horn had some advantages: first of all it meant that you could
take advantage of the edge effects of the corner to provide increased bass
response, and secondly that bass boost was predictable because everyone would
put the speaker in the same place in every room, rather than have it an
unknown distance from the rear and side walls.

It made sense back in the fifties when loaded horns were essential for high
efficiency at low frequencies, in an era of low amplifier power. Back then,
systems were mono and so the inability to place the speaker for good imaging
was a non-issue.

When stereo came in, corner horns went away.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2009 12:33:37 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>>Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes either couple or
>>>decouple the speaker from what it's standing on. Depending on which
>>>you WANTED them to do.
>>>
>>>This can't be right. What DID you mean?
>>
>>It depends on what you do with the spikes and where you place them. The
>>original intention was to couple the speaker through a carpet to a solid
>>floor, so the floor and the speaker move as a system. But they can also be
>>used with a flexible material like a rubber pad to decouple the speakers from
>>the floor.
>
>In the second case, why spikes? Why not just the rubber pad?

You want to minimize the area of contact with the pad. Plenty of more
efficient ways to do that than spikes, mind you, but spikes are usually
what people have handy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Looser]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> David Looser > wrote:
>>"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> My practical experience of large speakers - some much larger than
>>> anything found in a domestic setup - is that they generally sound MUCH
>>> better mounted at least a small distance away from any flat surface,
>>> wall or floor.
>>
>>At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
>>as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
>>1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of
>>the
>>cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
>>well.
>
> The corner horn had some advantages: first of all it meant that you could
> take advantage of the edge effects of the corner to provide increased bass
> response, and secondly that bass boost was predictable because everyone
> would
> put the speaker in the same place in every room, rather than have it an
> unknown distance from the rear and side walls.
>
> It made sense back in the fifties when loaded horns were essential for
> high
> efficiency at low frequencies, in an era of low amplifier power. Back
> then,
> systems were mono and so the inability to place the speaker for good
> imaging
> was a non-issue.
>
> When stereo came in, corner horns went away.

It wasn't a horn, it was a bass-reflex.

David.

[Scott Dorsey]

David Looser > wrote:
>>
>> When stereo came in, corner horns went away.
>
>It wasn't a horn, it was a bass-reflex.

There's a lot less benefit in putting a bass-reflex design in a corner,
but you do still get that edge effect and the matter of consistency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Looser]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> David Looser > wrote:
>>>
>>> When stereo came in, corner horns went away.
>>
>>It wasn't a horn, it was a bass-reflex.
>
> There's a lot less benefit in putting a bass-reflex design in a corner,
> but you do still get that edge effect and the matter of consistency.

I don't buy this "consistency" notion. There are still far too many
diferences: room size, furnishings and building construction. And that's
before we think about differences in the speakers themselves: driver types
and sizes, materials used, construction techniques etc.

David.

[Paul P[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Laurence Payne > wrote:

>>In the second case, why spikes? Why not just the rubber pad?

> You want to minimize the area of contact with the pad. Plenty of more
> efficient ways to do that than spikes, mind you, but spikes are usually
> what people have handy.

I've thought that the minimal contact area was important but the
smaller you go the higher the pressure so do things remain the
same ?

Paul P

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> David Looser > wrote:

>>> When stereo came in, corner horns went away.

>> It wasn't a horn, it was a bass-reflex.

> There's a lot less benefit in putting a bass-reflex design in a
> corner, but you do still get that edge effect and the matter of
> consistency.

Ime it is about the same 8 dB and they are worth having because the boost
from a corner is the smoothest available, also it fits a traditional tone
control very well and it is easy to get some degree of perceived
linearisation. With my current 4 way it is just a matter of overall bass
unit(s) drive level to get a reasonable tonal balance.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ian Iveson]

James 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.)
>
>
>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three? It
>> would have
>> to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't want
>> to modify the
>> speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstanders).
>
>
>> I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with
>> four solid
>> fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration
>> to the sound
>> is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has
>> too much
>> effect.
>
>
>> An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the
>> carpet beneath the
>> speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and
>> also present a
>> more uniform surface for the speakers though even that
>> would not be
>> perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the
>> local stores
>> are fairly lightweight.

Why don't chairs have three legs?

Tractors had three legs and they fell over easily. Maybe
they still do.

If you must use a tripod, put the single leg at the back,
otherwise the speaker will tip over if you brake mid-corner.
You can race a Morgan, but not a Reliant, unless you're
daft. At least when it falls over the chances are that it'll
be driver-side up, so a cone won't get spiked by the corner
of the coffee table.

If you had a four-to-three adaptor platform, then every time
you moved a speaker, you would need to lift it off its
platform, then move the platform, then lift the speaker back
onto it. That would surely take just as much time and effort
as adjusting a leg?

A flat stone could be more or less wobbly than four
imperfectly adjusted legs unless it's a lot wider, in which
case it might still be a bit wobbly and someone's bound to
trip and/or stub a toe on it, to boot, especially if you
keep moving it around. Anyway, if it's big and heavy then
it's hard to move, so how's that easier than adjusting a leg
or two?

If your floor is lumpy and you use a tripod, the chances are
that your speakers won't be upright.

You should put up with the need for adjustment.
Manufacturers of speakers (and cars) have generally found
the best compromise.

OTOH, perhaps an adaptor platform would make a plausible
audiophool accessory?

Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

David Looser > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> David Looser > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When stereo came in, corner horns went away.
>>>
>>>It wasn't a horn, it was a bass-reflex.
>>
>> There's a lot less benefit in putting a bass-reflex design in a corner,
>> but you do still get that edge effect and the matter of consistency.
>
>I don't buy this "consistency" notion. There are still far too many
>diferences: room size, furnishings and building construction. And that's
>before we think about differences in the speakers themselves: driver types
>and sizes, materials used, construction techniques etc.

Yup, that's true, but the number one thing that determines the low end
response (outside of the loudspeaker itself) is the boundary effect.
The corner horn controls that.

Now, things like standing waves in the room are still very, very significant
and corner placement doesn't do anything to reduce that; if anything it can
actually make some modes worse.
--scott

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> > Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some
> > makers take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think
> > the first to do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be
> > mounted on an open stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet -
> > like putting books on top - would negate the design theory.


> The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
> 'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,

Probably the same family as the BC1 - from an original BBC design study.

> apart from the
> rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a lot of money and
> maybe changing the speakers characteristics too much, in any case....

I suppose you tried inverting the driver?

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2009 10:52:05 -0400, (Scott
>> Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>> The sort of reasoning that puts spikes on speakers but
>>>> doesn't really know why. Some say it's to "couple".
>>>> Others to "decouple". What do you think they're for?
>>>
>>> You can do either... you can couple the speaker to a
>>> huge mass, or you can decouple it from all (possibly
>>> resonant) masses. Either method works, and you can
>>> measure whether it's working or not (or you can just
>>> put your hand on the floor and feel if it's vibrating).
>>
>> Reading at face value, that reply states that spikes
>> either couple or decouple the speaker from what it's
>> standing on. Depending on which you WANTED them to do.
>>
>> This can't be right. What DID you mean?
>
> It depends on what you do with the spikes and where you
> place them. The original intention was to couple the
> speaker through a carpet to a solid floor, so the floor
> and the speaker move as a system. But they can also be
> used with a flexible material like a rubber pad to
> decouple the speakers from the floor. --scott

I've ever heard spike claimed to be the mechanical equivalent of diodes...
....but audiophools say a lot of crazy things.

Driver moving mass is usually much less than 100 grams, but can be a 400
grams for some low-efficiency subwoofers. If the woofer is attached to a
substantial cabinet, the actual motion of the speaker enclosure due to cone
motion will be highly damped by simple mass loading to the point where the
energy thus radiated is trivial.

In general, the vibrations radiated by the cone are by far the most
important effect of the speaker, which is according to the basic design. ;-)

The proof of the pudding is to suspend the speaker in the almost same
location by means of fishline suspended from the ceiling which gives a very
strong decoupling effect. In actual tests, the speaker sounds the same.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:49:28 +0100, "David Looser"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>At one time there was a fad for mounting speakers as far into room corners
>>as possible. My granddad, who was something of a "HiFi" enthusiast in the
>>1950s built a speaker cabinet which used the walls and floor as part of
>>the
>>cabinet. I seem to remember that a barrow-load of sand was part of it as
>>well.
>
> Yup. And it probably got very loud with only a few watts input. If
> we were prepared to let our speakers take up rather more space,
> speaker design (and amp. power) could be very different :-)


Still is for a lot of people who prefer low power amp+efficient speakers to
*powerhouse* arcwelder+ironing board setups....

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> > Since it's impossible to make a totally rigid speaker cabinet some
>> > makers take into account any 'output' from the cabinet itself. Think
>> > the first to do this was the Spendor BC1. Which was designed to be
>> > mounted on an open stand about 9" high. Adding mass to the cabinet -
>> > like putting books on top - would negate the design theory.
>
>
>> The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
>> 'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,
>
> Probably the same family as the BC1 - from an original BBC design study.
>
>> apart from the
>> rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a lot of money and
>> maybe changing the speakers characteristics too much, in any case....
>
> I suppose you tried inverting the driver?


Sure - first port of call after turning the whole box upside down; then I
tried all sorts of fiddling about before I spoke to DK Loudspeakers:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DSCN1476.JPG

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:07:49 +0100, "Keith G"
> > wrote:
>
>>(I remember once I got someone to listen with his eyes shut while I slowly
>>rotated one speaker until it was facing the wall - he had no idea what was
>>going on and said the sound was unaffected throughout!! ;-)
>
> Yes, the Critical Distance for a given room/speaker combination is
> often closer than you think! In PA applications sometimes it's
> practically impossible to place the audience inside it.
>
> Where's your hi-fi listening "sweet spot" in relation to the CD? In
> any given room, the same for all speakers or not? When recording, I'm
> used to monitoring well inside, but checking a mix from WAY outside -
> like in the next room with the door shut!


In normal use I don't go for all this 'sweet spot' malarkey - I listen to
most of my music through the doorway from the next room when I'm not
listening to the setup on this computer! Anyway, a little while ago I was
prompted to make a couple of (mono) microphone recordings of the SET/Lothers
with my toyshop ribbon (haven't done it for ages) thus:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/RibbonSetup.jpg

(Note the dressing gown hanging behind it to soak up the 'backdraft'...)

Here's a couple of very dirty extracts, complete with hiss, hum, the 'needle
down' bang and even the sound of me closing the door, to give you an
approximate *recorded* idea of what I like soundwise:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SeleographtExtract.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SeleographtExtract2.mp3

[UnsteadyKen[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
> Here's a quick snap:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg

I see we shared the same taste in upmarket equipment racks and
meticulous wiring practice.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:53:42 +0100, "Keith G"
> wrote:

>In normal use I don't go for all this 'sweet spot' malarkey - I listen to
>most of my music through the doorway from the next room when I'm not
>listening to the setup on this computer!

Oh sure, me too. Unless I'm working, I'm listening to the music not
the equipment. Or just enjoying a pleasant background noise.

But just now and again the BBC pump out something good and I fancy
wallowing in a bit of stereo image. So I need to know where the sweet
spot IS :-)

[UnsteadyKen[_4_]]

>

oopths

http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> >> The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
> >> 'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,
> >
> > Probably the same family as the BC1 - from an original BBC design
> > study.
> >
> >> apart from the rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a
> >> lot of money and maybe changing the speakers characteristics too
> >> much, in any case....
> >
> > I suppose you tried inverting the driver?


> Sure - first port of call after turning the whole box upside down; then
> I tried all sorts of fiddling about before I spoke to DK Loudspeakers:

> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DSCN1476.JPG

If it was like the original BC1, the actual power handling was very low.
About 25 watts. It was designed by the BBC for use where high monitor
levels wouldn't be needed - and attempts at that wouldn't work as the BBC
ones had built in amps. Spendor very soon upgraded the bass units to
handle 50 watts.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

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

[Meindert Sprang]

"UnsteadyKen" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >
>
> oopths
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG

The brandname "IKEA" springs to mind....

Meindert

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Meindert Sprang > wrote:
> "UnsteadyKen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > oopths
> >
> > http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG

> The brandname "IKEA" springs to mind....

Some judicious use of trunking wouldn't go amiss. ;-)

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:41:51 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
> wrote:

>> http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG
>
>The brandname "IKEA" springs to mind....

Actually, one of those cheap Ikea wooden shelving units could probably
do a neater job. And wood's always nicer to look at. Or are those
"magic" shelves?

[Meindert Sprang]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:41:51 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
> > wrote:
>
> >> http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG
> >
> >The brandname "IKEA" springs to mind....
>
> Actually, one of those cheap Ikea wooden shelving units could probably
> do a neater job. And wood's always nicer to look at. Or are those
> "magic" shelves?

Yeah, probably plated with non-magnetostrictive chrome...

Meindert

[UnsteadyKen[_4_]]

Dave Plowman (News) says...

> Some judicious use of trunking wouldn't go amiss. ;-)

I tried that and cable tidies and ending up pulling my hair out when I
changed anything.

It photographs worse than it looks, sort of. We have so many sources
now, bring back the good old days. Connect up the turntable, tuner and
cassette deck and wonder what on earth the Aux socket could be used for.
Now I have 4 switch boxes.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[UnsteadyKen[_4_]]

Laurence Payne says...

> Actually, one of those cheap Ikea wooden shelving units could probably
> do a neater job. And wood's always nicer to look at. Or are those
> "magic" shelves?

Ikea! Heavens man, do you think I've won the lottery?

Economy before neatness is my motto.
They are unbranded flat pack kitchen racks from my usual audiophile
supplier
http://www.tjmorris.co.uk/
"magic" for the price 12 quid each, sturdy, adjustable shelf spacing and
lightweight.


--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "Meindert Sprang" > wrote:
>"UnsteadyKen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> oopths
>>
>> http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/mycrap.JPG
>
>The brandname "IKEA" springs to mind....


Hey, I got one of those. Its really nice. I had a 31 inch crt tv on it.
Heavy !!

greg

[Powell]

"James Harris" 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.

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


>> Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three?
>>
Some speaker manufactures use only three spikes. Two
in the front and one in the back. This makes adjusting
tweeter face rake adjustments much easier too.


>> It would have to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't
>> want to modify the speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience
>> 62 floorstanders).
> >
Spike sources, check out:
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=404_121
http://www.musicdirect.com/category/49


Quality casters make a good alternative (measured
reduction in cabinet vibration) to speaker spikes, IME.
They also give you the ability to move the speakers
about freely.


>> I'm thinking of something like a heavy duty plate with four solid
>> fittings above and three below. I suppose an alteration to the sound
>> is inevitable but would avoid scrap the idea if it has too much
>> effect.
>
>
>> An alternative is to put paving slabs on top of the carpet beneath the
>> speakers. They should be heavy enough to not move and also present a
>> more uniform surface for the speakers though even that would not be
>> perfect. The slight problem here is the slabs sold by the local stores
>> are fairly lightweight.
>
This is the least desirable of the alternatives you've site so far.

Oct, 2000 , TAS - What's Wrong With Speakers
by R.E. Greene

"But as soon as a speaker gets an input signal, it
starts doing things it shouldn't and starts making
noise, not just the music it should be making. Cones
and surrounds flexing, mechanical structures
vibrating, cabinets flexing in unpredicted and
unpredictable ways, air flowing turbulently,
electrostatic diaphragms vibrating chaotically
on the scale of small areas even if they are moving
regularly on a large scale, such sources of noise
are everywhere."

"How much noise are we talking about here?
A lot, a whole lot by the standards of noise
levels in electronics and recording systems.
Speaker noise appears only 20 to 30 dB down
from signal in some cases, and even the
cleanest speakers I know do not get the noise
down much more than 55 dB or so."

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Powell
> wrote:

> "James Harris" 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?

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

"Work" means?...

> 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?

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Wally]

Keith G wrote:

> Here's a couple of very dirty extracts, complete with hiss, hum, the
> 'needle down' bang and even the sound of me closing the door, to give
> you an approximate *recorded* idea of what I like soundwise:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SeleographtExtract.mp3

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


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> >> The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
>> >> 'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,
>> >
>> > Probably the same family as the BC1 - from an original BBC design
>> > study.
>> >
>> >> apart from the rasping bass unit I couldn't cure - without spending a
>> >> lot of money and maybe changing the speakers characteristics too
>> >> much, in any case....
>> >
>> > I suppose you tried inverting the driver?
>
>
>> Sure - first port of call after turning the whole box upside down; then
>> I tried all sorts of fiddling about before I spoke to DK Loudspeakers:
>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DSCN1476.JPG
>
> If it was like the original BC1, the actual power handling was very low.
> About 25 watts.


Yes, exactly so:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/RogersLabel.JPG

[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. 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?


>> 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).
If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate. 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. While it might
appear (feel) to you that your spikes are firmly in
they are still supported by the carper/pad. Sound
pressure measurements and auditioning indicate
only a poor improvement in fidelity if used in this way.


>> 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.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>
>> Here's a couple of very dirty extracts, complete with hiss, hum, the
>> 'needle down' bang and even the sound of me closing the door, to give
>> you an approximate *recorded* idea of what I like soundwise:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SeleographtExtract.mp3
>
> 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-Rachels/dp/B00000IR6T


Played, apparently, by the eponymous Rachel Grimes on a 1985 Zuckerman
French double-manual harpsichord. You can buy a kit and build one yourself
if you're up to it:

http://zhi.net/instr/FR63ZHI-K.shtml

:-)

Second extract (if I've got it right - I just plonked the needle down here
and there and strung a selection together in one go) is 'Mysterious
Disappearance Of Louis LePrince'...(??)

[Keith G[_2_]]

"UnsteadyKen" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Here's a quick snap:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Triangular.jpg
>
> I see we shared the same taste in upmarket equipment racks and
> meticulous wiring practice.
>
>
>


:-)

I've got a number of these racks - they were cheap as chips from Argos and
they're very strong!

(They figure in every shot of a kitchen I've seen lately and I've even seen
them posing as 'fixtures' in a submarine in some tossy film!!)

[Eiron]

Powell wrote:

> 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. 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.

You don't think that spikes will penetrate Jute? But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun trying.
Anyway, you are wrong. I just tried pushing a Tannoy spike through a piece of decent carpet
and underlay into my finger. It didn't take much force at all.

--
Eiron.

[Wally]

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-Rachels/dp/B00000IR6T

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


> Played, apparently, by the eponymous Rachel Grimes on a 1985 Zuckerman
> French double-manual harpsichord. You can buy a kit and build one
> yourself if you're up to it:
>
> http://zhi.net/instr/FR63ZHI-K.shtml
>
> :-)

Er, no. :)

Wouldn't mind a shot of one, though. The German double manual in the for
sale (or sold) section appeals to me more - not keen on the mega-ornate
styling.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

[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-Rachels/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/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/Scots_Guide/intro/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/professional/pe_electrical_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/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> 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.

OK I've looked. You are correct that it is not essential to have an
accredited qualification. But I also noticed that it then went on to say
"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is set at Master's
degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such knowledge and
understanding without formal training? I suggest that the word "accredited"
is important here. It's not that they expect the self-taught to be able to
take advantage of this route, rather it will be those who's qualifications
are not, for whatever reason, accredited.
>
> 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.

I'm not sure I follow the above. Accreditation applies to courses and
qualification awarding bodies. Thus a student who takes and passes such an
accredited course has already achieved the qualification part of gaining
CEng status.

> Then there's an element of practical experience that EC UK prescribes.

Precisely.

>
> 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 wonder why you assume I don't count law? Are you suggesting that it's
possible to work as a lawyer without qualifications? And school teachers
must have a teaching qualification (itself equivalent to a first degree) as
well (for secondary school teachers) as a degree in one's specialist
subject.
>
> I'd take it you spit at the mention of 'professional footballer' :-)

The "professions" is a rather old-fashioned notion, long pre-dating
professional footballers. But one can be a "professional" anything if it's
what one does to earn one's crust.
>
>
> 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.

I agree, with the proviso that I'd say "most cases", rather than "a lot of
cases"

> But I'd stress that I think this system is flawed - it forces a huge
> measure of compliance with institutional practice.
>
I wouldn't disagree with that. The ever increasing tendency to insist that
people hold certificates to be allowed to do what they do is not something I
am entirely happy with. Of course it does weed out the truly incompetent,
but it also inhibits innovation and individuality as well. I recently took a
teaching course (the short one for adult training, not the full
school-teachers course) and I was frankly appalled at the "one size fits
all" mentality of the course syllabus and the accrediting body.

David.

[Rob[_12_]]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "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.
>

While not illegal in the UK (or at least England; Scotland seems to
change by the day), it isn't much more than cheap labour or delegated
trust and responsibility (take your pick). We charged clients many
thousands for reports I'd write from surveys I'd done. This would
include home purchase surveys, but more commonly commercial valuations.
Around £100k pa fees for that type of work IIRC (early-mid-80s).

I got paid £1500pa when I started, and not much more when I left. It was
common knowledge that once you'd 'got your letters' your salary would
increase considerably. Ever one to ride the crest of a wave, by the time
I'd almost qualified I lost interest :-)

But it's the signatory who'd take the liability for professional
negligence/plain bad work. So, they'd be a fool if they didn't take
*any* interest in the paper they were signing, and most were many things
but not fools. I have to say I had a couple of scrapes that nearly got
my boss in deep water.

Rob

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
> wrote:

>"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is set at Master's
>degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such knowledge and
>understanding without formal training?

Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking about
technical people here. They know how to find and use resources -
probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:
> 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... ;^)

FWIW The UK govenment claim that having a 'degree' boosts lifetime earnings
for UK residents by the order of a couple of hundred thousand pounds [1]
relative to other with the same school results but no degree. However a BBC
Radio 4 program ('More or Less') that looks at the use of statistics
investigated this.

It found what you might expect. That when you take depeciation/inflation
into account and analyse by subject then...

Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do rather
better than the generalised average.

....but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went to
Uni for a degree.

Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Can't recall the exact figures they said, but they may be on the BBC
website if anyone is curious.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Arkansan Raider > wrote:
> 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?

Most of these 'meja studies' type degrees are relatively new in the scheme
of things. Didn't exist in the UK when I started out.

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

Or ask if you want fries with it. ;-)

Pretty well all the youngsters I come across in my industry these days
have a university or college qualification. But it doesn't seem to mean
they have greater skills where it matters than in olden days - as so much
of the job is learned by hands on experience. Which no academic course can
really provide.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

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

[David Looser]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
> > wrote:
>
>>"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is set at
>>Master's
>>degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such knowledge and
>>understanding without formal training?
>
> Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking about
> technical people here. They know how to find and use resources -
> probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.

How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you suggesting
that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or do they
absorb it with their Mother's milk?

And the reason they can't acquire it "on the job" is that without
qualifications nobody is going to give them a job!

David.

[Scott Dorsey]

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

It's enough for them to get five minutes in front of a console and at
that point it becomes very clear whether they are an operator, tech,
or intern.

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

I get a couple calls a week from kids with shiny new fresh degrees from
the recording trade schools. I ask them if they can solder or read a
conductor's score. I have yet to find any of them who can answer this
well.
--scott

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

[Powell]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

>> > 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'm not bothered if you doubt I am 'qualified' or not.
>
Hehehe, HAHAHA... yea, right!

I've seen a number of bull-**** artists like you over the last
dozen years on USEnet. **** off tea bag.

[David Looser]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I've seen a number of bull-**** artists like you over the last
> dozen years on USEnet. **** off tea bag.
>

Ah, at last Powell is showing us his true colours. The bull**** was entirely
your own.

David.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:55:26 +0100, Jim Lesurf >
wrote:

>Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do rather
>better than the generalised average.
>
>...but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went to
>Uni for a degree.
>
>Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)

Yeah. My brother, with a Classics degree from Oxford, always says his
highest-paid job was when he filled in as a dustman.

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is set at
>>> Master's
>>> degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such knowledge and
>>> understanding without formal training?
>> Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking about
>> technical people here. They know how to find and use resources -
>> probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.
>
> How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you suggesting
> that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or do they
> absorb it with their Mother's milk?
>

It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.

Some of my more awkward teaching moments arise with councillors. Two
spring to mind in the last couple of years - barely an O level between
them but with technical skill and ability well beyond mine - and that's
level 7 in this particular field. My role is relegated to trying to make
them fit within the constraints of a curriculum - one of the few times I
have to answer the question 'Why?' with 'Because I say so'. If they want
the qualification they're going to have to do as I advise. Not big or
clever, I know.

Interestingly and at last research is starting to come out relating to
the myth of working class 'ignorance' - I saw something by Chris Allen
at Salford recently.


> And the reason they can't acquire it "on the job" is that without
> qualifications nobody is going to give them a job!
>

Yes, I think people know that that's generally what happens. Doesn't
make it *right* though!

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> 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. :-)
>

If anything I think having a PhD might have been a hindrance at the
interview for my current job. None of the panel were strong academics,
and I spent a fair amount of time explaining how I could 'do' admin,
marketing and so forth. So yes, I think you could be right - I can
operate a photocopier like no other :-) which makes me a rather overpaid
and overqualified copier person - not unlike Stuart Pinkerton :-)


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

A rare set of qualities there. Makes all the difference.

Rob

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:56:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>> So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
>> recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?
>
>Most of these 'meja studies' type degrees are relatively new in the scheme
>of things. Didn't exist in the UK when I started out.

You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.

It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject. It could study all the media in
the same way as an English degree studies just one.

[Wecan do it]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
> > wrote:
>
>>"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is
>>set at Master's
>>degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such
>>knowledge and
>>understanding without formal training?
>
> Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking
> about
> technical people here. They know how to find and use
> resources -
> probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.

The PE exams in USA are open book. Take as many in as you can
wheel or carry. You still get only 8 hours to answer 8 of the
24 questions you chose. 63% of the first time takers pass.
They all qualified with 4 year accredited degrees and have
years of real experience endorsed by many other PE's. Must be
an easy test huh?

peace
dawg pe

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:56:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> > wrote:

> >> So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
> >> recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?
> >
> >Most of these 'meja studies' type degrees are relatively new in the scheme
> >of things. Didn't exist in the UK when I started out.

> You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
> But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
> means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.

Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

> It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject.

Sadly many of the colleges in the UK seem to turn out technicians who want
to run before they can walk. Which can be extremely frustrating for the
individuals.

> It could study all the media in
> the same way as an English degree studies just one.

I doubt any one individual has a comprehensive knowledge of all the media.
Although plenty *think* they have.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:16:16 -0400, "Wecan do it"
> wrote:

>The PE exams in USA are open book. Take as many in as you can
>wheel or carry. You still get only 8 hours to answer 8 of the
>24 questions you chose. 63% of the first time takers pass.
>They all qualified with 4 year accredited degrees and have
>years of real experience endorsed by many other PE's. Must be
>an easy test huh?

Or a badly aimed one. No way to tell from the data you've given.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:42:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>> You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
>> But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
>> means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.
>
>Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
>broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

Nice wriggle! I suppose it's also OK to "use" reverb to mean echo
(no, hold on, they're too close), blue to mean green (that's better!)
......

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>> 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... ;^)
>
> FWIW The UK govenment claim that having a 'degree' boosts lifetime earnings
> for UK residents by the order of a couple of hundred thousand pounds [1]
> relative to other with the same school results but no degree. However a BBC
> Radio 4 program ('More or Less') that looks at the use of statistics
> investigated this.
>
> It found what you might expect. That when you take depeciation/inflation
> into account and analyse by subject then...
>
> Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do rather
> better than the generalised average.
>
> ...but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went to
> Uni for a degree.
>
> Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)
>

Well, perhaps one moral might be to look at the remit and design of the
research :-)

Earnings can also be related to gender, ethnicity, class and age for
example. Simply correlating degree type and earnings doesn't tell you a
great deal about anything.

Depends what you want to hear, I suppose.

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:

> >
> > FWIW The UK govenment claim that having a 'degree' boosts lifetime
> > earnings for UK residents by the order of a couple of hundred thousand
> > pounds [1] relative to other with the same school results but no
> > degree. However a BBC Radio 4 program ('More or Less') that looks at
> > the use of statistics investigated this.
> >
> > It found what you might expect. That when you take
> > depeciation/inflation into account and analyse by subject then...
> >
> > Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do
> > rather better than the generalised average.
> >
> > ...but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went
> > to Uni for a degree.
> >
> > Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)
> >

> Well, perhaps one moral might be to look at the remit and design of the
> research :-)

> Earnings can also be related to gender, ethnicity, class and age for
> example. Simply correlating degree type and earnings doesn't tell you a
> great deal about anything.

It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-) The
point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now expected to pay
fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the government as one way to
justify this. The point of the examination was to see if the situation was
the same across all topics. The results reported indicated big differences
from one topic to another. So you would need - as common for experimental
results and statistics - to know the context in which the figures are
presented.

The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci, etc,
- that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime earnings.
But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a degree may be
likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to take, or careers to
aim at, might find that of some interest.

Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal" in
any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also be
dismissed. :-)

Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc. Simply
do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably well. But I know
that many students are anxious to take degrees that will give them a good
job or career for obvious reasons.

So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might be
of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that with
simply getting to work.

> Depends what you want to hear, I suppose.

Well, if you are in the UK you can hear it for yourself. :-) The program
was broadcast on Friday, so should still be on the BBC iPlayer 'listen
again', etc. They explained in detail how they had examined the figures. If
you find a flaw in their approach, let us know. Indeed, you can also email
them as they actively encourage that from listeners. I know from previous
programs that they do sometime correct what they said and acknowledge that
an email pointed out their error. So now's your chance. :-)

The point of the program is to re-examine the 'statistics' the government
and other issue to see if they actually mean what the issuers claim. I find
it an excellent program as it often uncovers ways in which dubious
conclusions are drawn from misuse of 'statistics'.

The R4 'Media Program' is also worth a listen IMO. They recently discussed
'media studies' and gave quite a range of views as the speakers on the
program included people involved with teaching and assessing such topics.

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Dave Plowman (News)
> wrote:
> In article >, Laurence Payne
> > wrote:


> Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
> broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

> > It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject.

> Sadly many of the colleges in the UK seem to turn out technicians who
> want to run before they can walk. Which can be extremely frustrating for
> the individuals.

I recall being shouted at by an aged professor of physics because the basic
'electronics' course I was giving physical science undergrads included
teaching them to solder and to build their own simple circuits. He was
furious that I was 'wasting their time', and that 'soldering was for
technicians, not graduates'. Fine for them to have lectures on
semiconductors and devices, but not to actually solder or make anything.

He was quite angry. And I was quite shocked by his reactions.

I was/am used to the idea that experimentalists should be able to design,
built, and test their own kit. Not just buy it all from the HP and
Minicircuits catalogue without having a clue how it worked. But so far as
he was concerned a 'graduate' would simply get someone else to do all that
and just step in to take down the results and publish them. Weird.

Similarly, I feel that even theoreticians find it useful to appreciate how
the kit that gathers their data actually works. Helps them to avoid 'over
interpretation' of the data, and to see what improvements might be sensibly
asked for.

Alas, his view wasn't unique. I have come across one or two 'EE' grads who
can't solder, and Mech ones who can't tell brass from aluminimum when given
two lumps of metal and asked which is which. Again, this does seem weird to
me. I guess they just get lectures and computer simulations. Who needs to
solder when they have spice, etc? :-)

Mind you, I admit to being old-fashioned. Took decades to wean me off
FORTRAN onto 'C' and I still dislike people modelling with Mathcad,
Spreadsheets, etc. 8-]

Still... after 25 years, the labwork I put into the course is still there.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Arny Krueger]

"David Looser" > wrote in
message
> "Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I've seen a number of bull-**** artists like you over
>> the last dozen years on USEnet. **** off tea bag.
>>
>
> Ah, at last Powell is showing us his true colours. The
> bull**** was entirely your own.
>

Some of us have been familair with Powell's antics for well over decade and
across several Usenet forums.

Some things never seem to change.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
> >> You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
> >> But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
> >> means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.
> >
> >Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
> >broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

> Nice wriggle! I suppose it's also OK to "use" reverb to mean echo
> (no, hold on, they're too close), blue to mean green (that's better!)

Most of the youngsters I come in contact with come from either
Ravensbourne (which does dozens of different courses) and the occasional
Tonmeister from Guildford.
If you can suggest a better term for the courses this sort of
establishment run I'd be happy to use it.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:25:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>> >> You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
>> >> But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
>> >> means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.
>> >
>> >Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
>> >broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.
>
>> Nice wriggle! I suppose it's also OK to "use" reverb to mean echo
>> (no, hold on, they're too close), blue to mean green (that's better!)
>
> Most of the youngsters I come in contact with come from either
>Ravensbourne (which does dozens of different courses) and the occasional
>Tonmeister from Guildford.
> If you can suggest a better term for the courses this sort of
>establishment run I'd be happy to use it.

Pick one (if you don't like "tonmeister"). Feel free to mis-spell and
otherwise mock it. But you can't have "Media Studies". That's
already taken, and means something quite different.

(You can't have "Home Econonics" or "Nuclear Physics" either, for the
same reason.)

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> David Looser wrote:
>>
>> How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you
>> suggesting that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or
>> do they absorb it with their Mother's milk?
>>
>
> It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.

Read what?, watch what?, and listen to what?

An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of those
things.
>
> Some of my more awkward teaching moments arise with councillors. Two
> spring to mind in the last couple of years - barely an O level between
> them but with technical skill and ability well beyond mine - and that's
> level 7 in this particular field. My role is relegated to trying to make
> them fit within the constraints of a curriculum - one of the few times I
> have to answer the question 'Why?' with 'Because I say so'. If they want
> the qualification they're going to have to do as I advise. Not big or
> clever, I know.
>

I really didn't understand much of that. By "councillors" do you mean people
who are members of county and district councils? Why would they be expected
to have technical skills? You say they have "technical skill and ability
well beyond mine". What skills? The word "technical" covers a multitude of
different things. In the world of audio, for example, there are "technical"
skills, such as using a soldering iron, that don't require higher education,
and skills such as those shown by Jim that, except for the rare geniuses of
this world, do. And I have no idea of what "level 7" means, nor what "field"
you are refering to.

> Interestingly and at last research is starting to come out relating to the
> myth of working class 'ignorance' - I saw something by Chris Allen at
> Salford recently.
>
Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>
David.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jim Lesurf > wrote:
>I was/am used to the idea that experimentalists should be able to design,
>built, and test their own kit. Not just buy it all from the HP and
>Minicircuits catalogue without having a clue how it worked. But so far as
>he was concerned a 'graduate' would simply get someone else to do all that
>and just step in to take down the results and publish them. Weird.

This is all a very fine idea.... but where do those other people come from?

That's part of the problem, that there are very few actual technicians
being trained today. It's worse in the mechanical world... I think the
average age of the precision machinists at work is about sixty.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

David Looser > wrote:
>"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>>
>>> How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you
>>> suggesting that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or
>>> do they absorb it with their Mother's milk?
>>>
>>
>> It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.
>
>Read what?, watch what?, and listen to what?
>
>An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of those
>things.

That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
education, and sometimes an excellent one. It doesn't come with a certificate
at the end, though. (Although there are still some craft guilds in some
places that do that.)
--scott

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

[David Looser]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> David Looser > wrote:
>>
>>An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
>>those
>>things.
>
> That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
> education, and sometimes an excellent one.

Indeed. Apprenticeships were an excellent system, and it's a crying shame
that they are so few and far between these days.

> It doesn't come with a certificate
> at the end, though.

No? Those that I know anything about did. And if it's for anything more than
a purely physical skill it will include class-room tuition at a level
appropriate to the job for which the apprentice is being trained, up to and
including university level.

David.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
> > Most of the youngsters I come in contact with come from either
> >Ravensbourne (which does dozens of different courses) and the occasional
> >Tonmeister from Guildford.
> > If you can suggest a better term for the courses this sort of
> >establishment run I'd be happy to use it.

> Pick one (if you don't like "tonmeister").

Tonmeister is a specific type of course combining audio and music. And not
the most common qualification for starting a career in audio. Given more
work in broadcasting than recording, etc.

> Feel free to mis-spell and
> otherwise mock it. But you can't have "Media Studies". That's
> already taken, and means something quite different.

Hence my use of Meja Studies which you seem to object to. Despite it being
the sort of course many take when they can't think of a better one. ;-)

> (You can't have "Home Econonics" or "Nuclear Physics" either, for the
> same reason.)

Perhaps it's escaped you that broadcasting is part of the media.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> David Looser > wrote:
> >"Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> David Looser wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you
> >>> suggesting that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or
> >>> do they absorb it with their Mother's milk?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.
> >
> >Read what?, watch what?, and listen to what?
> >
> >An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
> >those things.

> That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
> education, and sometimes an excellent one. It doesn't come with a
> certificate at the end, though. (Although there are still some craft
> guilds in some places that do that.) --scott

Certainly when I learned my trade in broadcast audio, it was more akin to
an apprenticeship - including one person being personally responsible for
making sure some aspects of training were covered - following a set of
guidelines. No day release to go to college - the BBC instead lumped it
all together in a series of residential courses.
But this all falls apart when organizations like the BBC no longer use
staff for the majority of these jobs - or indeed do the same sort of
training. Which is a disgrace for a publicly funded body.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Scott Dorsey
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf > wrote:
> >I was/am used to the idea that experimentalists should be able to
> >design, built, and test their own kit. Not just buy it all from the HP
> >and Minicircuits catalogue without having a clue how it worked. But so
> >far as he was concerned a 'graduate' would simply get someone else to
> >do all that and just step in to take down the results and publish them.
> >Weird.

> This is all a very fine idea.... but where do those other people come
> from?

> That's part of the problem, that there are very few actual technicians
> being trained today. It's worse in the mechanical world... I think the
> average age of the precision machinists at work is about sixty. --scott

I agree. This is also a worry in the UK in my experience. A serious problem
is that many companies have long ceased taking 'apprenticeship' or similar
practical development seriously. They all tend to fall back on 'poaching
those already trained somewhere else'... which eventually means no-one has
the needed skills and abilities, so there is no-one to poach from someone
else!

The advantage I had in my Uni research groups is that we could employ
people in workshops and labs, and have them develop their skills over the
years by an appropriate combination of doing the work, taking courses,
sitting next to Nellie, etc. This can be slow, and not everyone has the
flair needed for good practical technical skills.

And when someone with practical skills starts to show real talent, you then
need to give them work that stretches their ability so they can progress
and make outstanding things. If you keep them making the same old shmutter
all the time they get bored.

FWIW I used to run my old research group as if it were a small bizness.
Most of the income was from contracts to develop, build, and supply working
kit. Generally to work at levels of performance orders of magnitude better
than the alternatives. This required more than a few 'clever academics with
big brains'. It also needed people with the skills and practical ingenuity
(Engineers) who could make things that no-one else had been able to
actually make. No result, and the customer would have asked where there
money was. Not like the usual UK research grant were you can grab the
money and then say at the end that you didn't do what you'd promised, but
had enjoyed the experience. :-)

So a key part of that was finding talented technical people and giving them
a chance to really show what they could do. If they were good they enjoyed
it, as you might expect.

But I always was a weird 'academic' for the UK, I guess. I used to keep
being nagged by heads of dept because I didn't write many papers (although
my students, etc, did). But the nagging used to soften when they noted the
cashflow. :-)

Alas, in the UK there is a long tradition of 'looking down' on the 'mere
technician'. Hence the crazy attitude of the prof I described. One result
is that school students in the UK feel pushed into 'academic' topics at
school and away from practical skills. This also tends to be reflected in
the schools wanting the 'better results' of having loads of kids going to
Uni rather than going into 'old fashioned' technical areas.

I'd better stop, I'm getting dangeriously near ranting about politics and
how UK goverments, etc, have damaged the real-world skills of many of our
people! :-)

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, David Looser
> wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > David Looser > wrote:
> >>
> >>An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
> >>those things.
> >
> > That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
> > education, and sometimes an excellent one.

> Indeed. Apprenticeships were an excellent system, and it's a crying
> shame that they are so few and far between these days.

I am also very annoyed by the way the old 'CASE' studentships were ruined
by the powers-that-be a decade or so ago.

For many years they allowed any academic and any company to co-operate and
have a postgrad doing R&D on a topic of their choice. They were easy to
get, and really superb for the students as well as the company.

Then the way they were organised was 'improved' (i.e. fouled up) by
requiring big companies to have 'quotas' for them. In effect blocking any
small companies or individuals who wanted to use them. Insane decision that
lost the UK many good student opportunities with practical and technical
relevance. But it suited the men from the ministry as it meant they were in
control and could announce 'big deals' with 'big companies' to make their
ministers look good.

Bit like large dam projects in the third world instead of allowing people
to install village wells and power systems. Looks good for the big chiefs,
but poorer value for those on the ground.

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jim Lesurf > wrote:
>> I was/am used to the idea that experimentalists should be able to design,
>> built, and test their own kit. Not just buy it all from the HP and
>> Minicircuits catalogue without having a clue how it worked. But so far as
>> he was concerned a 'graduate' would simply get someone else to do all that
>> and just step in to take down the results and publish them. Weird.
>
> This is all a very fine idea.... but where do those other people come from?
>
> That's part of the problem, that there are very few actual technicians
> being trained today. It's worse in the mechanical world... I think the
> average age of the precision machinists at work is about sixty.
> --scott
>
In the [not quite] real world where I worked it was fun to watch
the newly hired PhD's being given a lab space and equipment budget
but NO tech support for the first year. They had a heck of a lot of
catching up to do. Sort of the PhD equivalent of freshman washout
classes. <G>


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you
>>> suggesting that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or
>>> do they absorb it with their Mother's milk?
>>>
>> It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.
>
> Read what?, watch what?, and listen to what?
>
> An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of those
> things.

If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.

>> Some of my more awkward teaching moments arise with councillors. Two
>> spring to mind in the last couple of years - barely an O level between
>> them but with technical skill and ability well beyond mine - and that's
>> level 7 in this particular field. My role is relegated to trying to make
>> them fit within the constraints of a curriculum - one of the few times I
>> have to answer the question 'Why?' with 'Because I say so'. If they want
>> the qualification they're going to have to do as I advise. Not big or
>> clever, I know.
>>
>
> I really didn't understand much of that. By "councillors" do you mean people
> who are members of county and district councils? Why would they be expected
> to have technical skills? You say they have "technical skill and ability
> well beyond mine". What skills? The word "technical" covers a multitude of
> different things. In the world of audio, for example, there are "technical"
> skills, such as using a soldering iron, that don't require higher education,
> and skills such as those shown by Jim that, except for the rare geniuses of
> this world, do. And I have no idea of what "level 7" means, nor what "field"
> you are refering to.

Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
postgrad. My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean
anything - and I have daily reminders.

>
>> Interestingly and at last research is starting to come out relating to the
>> myth of working class 'ignorance' - I saw something by Chris Allen at
>> Salford recently.
>>
> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
> David.
>

Could be ;-)

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Rob
> > wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> FWIW The UK govenment claim that having a 'degree' boosts lifetime
>>> earnings for UK residents by the order of a couple of hundred thousand
>>> pounds [1] relative to other with the same school results but no
>>> degree. However a BBC Radio 4 program ('More or Less') that looks at
>>> the use of statistics investigated this.
>>>
>>> It found what you might expect. That when you take
>>> depeciation/inflation into account and analyse by subject then...
>>>
>>> Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do
>>> rather better than the generalised average.
>>>
>>> ...but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went
>>> to Uni for a degree.
>>>
>>> Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)
>>>
>
>> Well, perhaps one moral might be to look at the remit and design of the
>> research :-)
>
>> Earnings can also be related to gender, ethnicity, class and age for
>> example. Simply correlating degree type and earnings doesn't tell you a
>> great deal about anything.
>
> It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
> government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-) The
> point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now expected to pay
> fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the government as one way to
> justify this. The point of the examination was to see if the situation was
> the same across all topics. The results reported indicated big differences
> from one topic to another. So you would need - as common for experimental
> results and statistics - to know the context in which the figures are
> presented.
>

Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
had reasonably expected. Law is a profession that discriminates for
example. So the 'high earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and
not if you're a black woman. So the statistics only start to have
meaning once you know who they apply to - and that research doesn't
seem to be in the wild - although I can't imagine it'd be especially
difficult to find out.

> The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci, etc,
> - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime earnings.
> But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a degree may be
> likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to take, or careers to
> aim at, might find that of some interest.
>
> Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal" in
> any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also be
> dismissed. :-)
>
> Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc. Simply
> do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably well. But I know
> that many students are anxious to take degrees that will give them a good
> job or career for obvious reasons.
>
> So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might be
> of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that with
> simply getting to work.
>

It will be of use in some cases, granted.

>> Depends what you want to hear, I suppose.
>
> Well, if you are in the UK you can hear it for yourself. :-) The program
> was broadcast on Friday, so should still be on the BBC iPlayer 'listen
> again', etc. They explained in detail how they had examined the figures. If
> you find a flaw in their approach, let us know. Indeed, you can also email
> them as they actively encourage that from listeners. I know from previous
> programs that they do sometime correct what they said and acknowledge that
> an email pointed out their error. So now's your chance. :-)
>
> The point of the program is to re-examine the 'statistics' the government
> and other issue to see if they actually mean what the issuers claim. I find
> it an excellent program as it often uncovers ways in which dubious
> conclusions are drawn from misuse of 'statistics'.
>
> The R4 'Media Program' is also worth a listen IMO. They recently discussed
> 'media studies' and gave quite a range of views as the speakers on the
> program included people involved with teaching and assessing such topics.
>

Yes, thanks for that, will do.

Rob

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David Looser > wrote:
>>> An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
>>> those
>>> things.
>> That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
>> education, and sometimes an excellent one.
>
> Indeed. Apprenticeships were an excellent system, and it's a crying shame
> that they are so few and far between these days.
>
IMHO, it's because the education industry wants a cut and thus
has lobbied for documentation of just about everything.

>> It doesn't come with a certificate
>> at the end, though.
>
> No? Those that I know anything about did. And if it's for anything more than
> a purely physical skill it will include class-room tuition at a level
> appropriate to the job for which the apprentice is being trained, up to and
> including university level.
>
> David.
>
Bureaucrats need documentation. For them job performance doesn't
seem to matter if the proper credentials aren't there. Again,
class-room/tuition ...education industry mindset. [Damn, I'm
starting to sound like I'm anti education, I'm not, but much
of the mindless certification gets to me at times.]

If I hire a contractor to work on my house I'd care a lot more
about his previous work(s) than his degrees or certificates.



Later...

Ron Capik
--

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> David Looser wrote:
>>
>> An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
>> those things.
>
> If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.

Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
>
>
> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
> postgrad.

And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
"councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them have
far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your skills
are to postgrad level?

> My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean anything - and I
> have daily reminders.

Hmm... It seems to me that you are totally cynical about your own job. Not a
very good advert for your own skills are you?
>
>>>
>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>> David.
>>
>
> Could be ;-)
>

Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
replying.

David.

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
>>> those things.
>> If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.
>
> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.

'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and
be good at things.

>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>> postgrad.
>
> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them have
> far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your skills
> are to postgrad level?
>

Councillors are elected local politicians. In the examples I gave they
had more current technical detail knowledge than me (although more than
that required for the module) - and I write and teach nationally to PG
level. They're not quite so hot on the evaluation though ;-)

>> My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean anything - and I
>> have daily reminders.
>
> Hmm... It seems to me that you are totally cynical about your own job. Not a
> very good advert for your own skills are you?

Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they
are, and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good
at what I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications. Neither is it in
spite - the *process* of education can be illuminating as well.

>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>> David.
>>>
>> Could be ;-)
>>
>
> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
> replying.
>

If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
> > government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
> > The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
> > expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
> > government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
> > was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
> > results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
> > So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
> > - to know the context in which the figures are presented.
> >

> Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
> had reasonably expected.

Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
the average.


> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
> woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
> they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
> although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.

I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
so can't say.

> > The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
> > etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
> > earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
> > degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
> > take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.
> >
> > Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
> > in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
> > be dismissed. :-)
> >
> > Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
> > Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
> > well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
> > will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.
> >
> > So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
> > be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
> > with simply getting to work.
> >

> It will be of use in some cases, granted.

Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
'some' it will not.

Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.

But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
status, etc.

My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
work can be worth a lot more than money."

But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

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


> >>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class. David.
> >>>
> >> Could be ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have
> > bothered replying.
> >

> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)

Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is likely
to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain your
views, or just 'win an argument'?

Slainte,

Jim

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

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> David Looser wrote:
>>
>> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
>> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
>
> 'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and be
> good at things.

No, but they do help demonstrate to others that you are "good at things".
And *if* you are "good at things" then it's no great effort to acquire the
qualification that will allow you to do that.

>>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>>> postgrad.
>>
>> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
>> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them
>> have far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your
>> skills are to postgrad level?
>>
>
> Councillors are elected local politicians.

Ah, at last you are giving an answer to one of the question that I asked a
couple of posts back. But you still haven't answered the question as to
*what* are these "technical skills" that they are so good at, or indeed what
"field" you are in. And what is the relevance of the fact that these people
are councillors?

> In the examples I gave they had more current technical detail knowledge
> than me (although more than that required for the module) - and I write
> and teach nationally to PG level. They're not quite so hot on the
> evaluation though ;-)

Again, what "current technical detail knowledge" are we talking about? And
what are you teaching them?, indeed why are you teaching them?
>
> Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they are,
> and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good at what
> I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications.

So what do you do?

And of course you aren't good at what you do *because* of your
qualifications - what an absurd thing to say. You are qualified in what you
do because you are good at it, not the other way about.

>
>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>>>
>>> Could be ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
>> replying.
>>
>
> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>

If that's what you think I have been arguing all this time then you haven't
read my posts. My point about "not bothering" is that, unlike you
apparently, I do not see a connection between being "unqualified" and being
"working class". If you want to indulge in inverted class snobbery be my
guest, but I'm not interested.

David.

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Rob
> > wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
>>> government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
>>> The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
>>> expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
>>> government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
>>> was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
>>> results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
>>> So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
>>> - to know the context in which the figures are presented.
>>>
>
>> Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
>> had reasonably expected.
>
> Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
> that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
> the average.
>

No, I know. But it's why an individual attains below average that's of
importance. 'Average' is of limited use in this discussion, that's all
I'm saying.

>
>> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
>> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
>> woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
>> they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
>> although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.
>
> I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
> science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
> there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
> so can't say.
>

Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
when 'sexism engineering' is input.


>>> The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
>>> etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
>>> earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
>>> degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
>>> take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.
>>>
>>> Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
>>> in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
>>> be dismissed. :-)
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
>>> Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
>>> well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
>>> will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.
>>>
>>> So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
>>> be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
>>> with simply getting to work.
>>>
>
>> It will be of use in some cases, granted.
>
> Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
> are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
> they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
> 'some' it will not.
>

There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an already
OT subject.


> Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
> find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
> bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
> not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
> had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
> opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
> according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.
>
> But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
> to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
> and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
> status, etc.
>
> My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
> Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
> a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
> work can be worth a lot more than money."
>

Precisely so, couldn't agree more. As the subjects i teach have very
little to do with commercial gain I don't see much money motivation.

> But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
> ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
> be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
> and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
> for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.
>

I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
about 'vast bulk' though.

I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Rob
> > wrote:
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class. David.
>>>>>
>>>> Could be ;-)
>>>>
>>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have
>>> bothered replying.
>>>

To return to this point for a moment - class is a perfectly reasonable
aspect of analysis.

>
>> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
>> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>
> Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is likely
> to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain your
> views, or just 'win an argument'?
>

It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama. I wouldn't for one moment
assume David is uncritically accepting of a 'qualified person' in all
circumstances. Just more than healthy.

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> om...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>> Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
>>> benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
>> 'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and be
>> good at things.
>
> No, but they do help demonstrate to others that you are "good at things".
> And *if* you are "good at things" then it's no great effort to acquire the
> qualification that will allow you to do that.
>

But why should you bother? To get the job, status, pay, professional
accountability etc - not necessarily to do the job any better.

>>>> Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
>>>> postgrad.
>>> And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
>>> "councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them
>>> have far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your
>>> skills are to postgrad level?
>>>
>> Councillors are elected local politicians.
>
> Ah, at last you are giving an answer to one of the question that I asked a
> couple of posts back. But you still haven't answered the question as to
> *what* are these "technical skills" that they are so good at, or indeed what
> "field" you are in. And what is the relevance of the fact that these people
> are councillors?
>

Relevance - none. Actual skills. The particular field I have in mind is
social housing finance and the maintenance of local authority accounts.
There's a heap of CIPFA guidance/protocols I know very little about -
they seemed to know it pretty well.

My field is social policy. My specialism is social housing, and then
within that housing finance.

>> In the examples I gave they had more current technical detail knowledge
>> than me (although more than that required for the module) - and I write
>> and teach nationally to PG level. They're not quite so hot on the
>> evaluation though ;-)
>
> Again, what "current technical detail knowledge" are we talking about? And
> what are you teaching them?, indeed why are you teaching them?

I think they were doing the course because they were interested - I
couldn't see any career reasons. Why teach them - because they wanted to
learn. The courses are made up of several modules - law, social policy,
finance, practice and so on.

>> Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they are,
>> and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good at what
>> I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications.
>
> So what do you do?
>

Teacher/researcher. And I'd say my teaching qualification was not the
most enlightening thing I've ever done. Unless something subliminal went
on, it taught me nothing.

> And of course you aren't good at what you do *because* of your
> qualifications - what an absurd thing to say. You are qualified in what you
> do because you are good at it, not the other way about.
>
>>>>> Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.
>>>>>
>>>> Could be ;-)
>>>>
>>> Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
>>> replying.
>>>
>> If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
>> degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)
>>
>
> If that's what you think I have been arguing all this time then you haven't
> read my posts.

It was slightly tongue in cheek.

My point about "not bothering" is that, unlike you
> apparently, I do not see a connection between being "unqualified" and being
> "working class". If you want to indulge in inverted class snobbery be my
> guest, but I'm not interested.
>

Not sure where you got that link from. Anything in the social world
could be about class - plenty of theories knocking about stating thus.
You asked - I just said 'could be'.

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:


> >
> >> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
> >> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a
> >> black woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you
> >> know who they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the
> >> wild - although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find
> >> out.
> >
> > I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in
> > physical science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or
> > other reasons there may be a bias in student preferences at the
> > outset. Don't have data so can't say.
> >

> Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
> when 'sexism engineering' is input.

Not doubt. Given fields with numbers of examples in the millions I assume
you could find examples of almost anything. I can't say I've noticed it.
But then I guess my only contact will have been because some of the people
I have hired/supervised/worked with have been from what might seem 'ethinic
minorities' (or whatever the nice phrase may be) in a UK context. So far as
I could tell, their mix of abilities, etc, showed no signs of being
different to others. But I don't doubt you can find examples of bias that
would pass me by. So I guess I am not well placed to comment in general.


> >>> So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic
> >>> might be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing
> >>> that with simply getting to work.
> >>>
> >
> >> It will be of use in some cases, granted.
> >
> > Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show
> > they are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the
> > averages they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that
> > situation. But for 'some' it will not.
> >

> There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
> class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
> skew things.

The difficulty here is akin to your waryness about 'averages'. Yes, there
will be examples of what you say. My experience is that it isn't common in
engineering or physical science in the UK. But no doubt I may have simply
missed it. I am sure I an just as guilty of ignorance as anyone else who
hasn't been in the sharp end of being badly treated.

I do recall a case some decades ago when someone was being interviewed for
a job at Armstrong Audio. He was turned down and became annoyed. Started
claiming he was being discriminated against for reasons of colour, etc. So
the director took him around the factory and showed him the people already
happily working there on the line, offices, etc Since the staff came from
around and about the North/East London area it was a bit like the 'United
Nations'. :-)

That has reminded me of one if the photos I think is on the Armstrong
website. This shows one of our test/repair staff of the time. He was
someone with superb 'diagnostic' skills for finding out faults in equipment
and fixing them. If curious, it is the lower image on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/pandp/prod2.html

Interesting that some people do develop a particular talent for being able
to find faults. Yet some people who design kit find this hard when their
magnum opus won't behave.

Maybe it was different elsewhere. But the Armstrong employees were all
essentially like a 'family'. Including coach trips together, everyone
getting a chicken or alternative at Xmas, etc. I thoughly enjoyed my years
there and pleased to have worked with all of them.

The company was taken on after it ceased making consumer gear by Twaleb -
who was originally from Mauritius (is that how you spell it, I can't
recall!) He'd joined the company years before as a 'tester' and ended up
running the place and owning it.

I used to envy him as his wife was a stewardess on the Mauritius arline so
he kept being able to get free seats there and back. Closest I ever got to
that was when I worked for a few months at Aerospat in Tolouse. Since Air
France were part-funding the work I could fly home most weekends with my
laundry. If the standard seats were full they used to shove me into 1st.
:-)

> But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
> someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
> discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

....or even to presume they will, or that differs from anywhere else.
Wouldn't do to discriminate against engineers and assume they are
abnormally bad in this respect, would it? :-)

> In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
> Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
> has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an
> already OT subject.

Yes. :-) However so far as physical science or EE in the UK goes, the
main problem in the past seemed to be at school level, with kids being
given the feeling that it 'wasn't for girls'.


> > But the problem here is that some students may have totally
> > unrealistic ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they
> > think they will be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But
> > the vast bulk will not, and may find that some other topics would have
> > suited them better *both* for getting a job, *and* for jobs they
> > eventually find they enjoy.
> >

> I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
> studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
> about 'vast bulk' though.

The 'vast bulk' comment was wrt assuming they could become Paxman clones.
The problem here is that there are only a tiny number of jobs like that,
even if all the graduates in media studies were 'good enough' whatever that
might mean in the context.

> I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
> film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
> What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
> think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
> but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Yes. But to bring us back to the root of the discussion: I have my doubts
that anyone needs to go to university to spot when the media are talking
spheriods of revolution. Although in audio, some idea of EE or physics
might help a bit! And in some cases the technobabble is quite
mind-numbingly fancy. Baloney Baffles Brains... :-)

But I agree this is all wildly OT so I'll stop here.

Slainte,

Jim

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

[David Looser]

"Rob" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is
>> likely
>> to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain
>> your
>> views, or just 'win an argument'?
>>
>
> It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama.

Nope, it was a straw-man argument, pure and simple. You set up a strawman -
someone who is "dazzled" by qualifications (which is about as far removed
from my own POV as you can get) - simply so that you can knock it down.

> I wouldn't for one moment assume David is uncritically accepting of a
> 'qualified person' in all circumstances. Just more than healthy.
>
Which again shows that you are reading what you want (or expect) to read
from my posts, rather than what I have written.

In no way am I "dazzled" by qualifications. I joined in this thread because
I do not believe that there are masses of unqualified (and thus untrained,
because training leads to qualifications) scientists and engineers out there
who can do science and engineering better than the people who have taken the
trouble to get a bit of education first. Which was more-or-less the original
claim.

In the field I now discover (at long last!) you have been talking about it
may very well be true that there are a lot of unqualified people who can do
the job better than the qualified. But this is an audio ng, and housing
policy seems rather off-topic.

David.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:08:35 GMT, Rob >
wrote:

>There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
>class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
>skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
>someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
>discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

But these days the discrimination is more likely in FAVOUR of the
lame-duck categories.

[news.zen.co.uk]

Evening all,

"Richard Lamont" > wrote in message
...

> Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:
>
> 1. Astrology
> 2. Magic healing crystals
> 3. Green CD marker

It might have started as an April Fool's joke, but Green CD markers actually
work. I tried one on one of my CDs, and in a level matched, controlled DBT
all participants agreed that the edge of the CD is now green.

Regards,
Glenn.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"news.zen.co.uk" > wrote in message
...
> Evening all,
>
> "Richard Lamont" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:
>>
>> 1. Astrology
>> 2. Magic healing crystals
>> 3. Green CD marker
>
> It might have started as an April Fool's joke, but Green CD markers
> actually work. I tried one on one of my CDs, and in a level matched,
> controlled DBT all participants agreed that the edge of the CD is now
> green.
>
> Regards,
> Glenn.


Mystified....

If the test was 'blind' how could the participants see the 'green edge'...??