Yeah, you're right. Those engineers who only have a BS degree should not be trusted. Next time you get on an airplane you better check whether all of the aeronautical engineers at Boeing who worked on the design had a PhD. If not, I suggest you don't get on the plane.
I don't decide to get on a plane or not based on what degree the engineer has. I look at the crash versus safety history instead.
Not only that, but many employers don't hire based on educational degrees as much as they used to. They found out a degree doesn't guarantee competence.
Not only that, but many employers don't hire based on educational degrees as much as they used to. They found out a degree doesn't guarantee competence.
What do you all think if we consider enough what we have said so far about engineers?
I've understood many points of view, I agree with some and I don't agree with others, there are those who don't agree with me, but they always answer the same thing, even in different threads.
If there is someone who wants to be "right" at all costs even without we thinking it, let us know.
But please, let's stop talking about engineers!
I've understood many points of view, I agree with some and I don't agree with others, there are those who don't agree with me, but they always answer the same thing, even in different threads.
If there is someone who wants to be "right" at all costs even without we thinking it, let us know.
But please, let's stop talking about engineers!
I generally avoid these potentially conflictual threads, I just thought I would throw my nickel in the barrel for anyone who wants to fish it out.
I feel the same way about wine tasters.
Judging
Subjective.Sound Quality:
Personal.Preference
The only thing that really matters.or Skill?
Only pontificated by the 'golden ears' persons.I feel the same way about wine tasters.
My contribution:
I recommend, based on some arguments:
Speakers have an image size. Different speakers have different image sizes.
The majority of stereo signals are found on both channels, i.e. "mono".
If speakers are placed too far apart, the sound image is torn apart.
To find a sound that is homogeneous in depth, width and also height, and tonally: recommend placing your speakers about 50 cm (center-center) apart and listening for a while. Then at some point place the speakers 60 cm apart. Then at some point 70 cm. And so on, until the sound image torn apart... Don't forget to move speakers back until they play together again now;-)
With compact speakers, this distance is far less than one meter, with really large floorstanding speakers very rarely more than 1.5 meters.
Angulation: max homogeneity: often so that the outer side walls of the boxes are visible.
Distance to the rear wall: when bass and fundamental engage.
And: sources and amplifiers (and single parts as transistors or caps) and others also have different imaging sizes and shapes. The initially adjusted loudspeaker placement must very often be corrected, even if only by 2 - 3 cm, when replacing equipment.
...and: No DSP: all your equipment, all parts, the system is the "DSP"-)
If I may reply something from my point of view without you taking it as a conflict, it is the following:
Until we have a device that tells us how an audio device sounds, we will have no choice but to listen to it.
Which is also the exact purpose for which it was designed.
From my modest point of view, I don't see anything conflicting, on the contrary, there would be the need to become aware of the fact that certain sharings can be done without being "golden ears" at all.
What does an audio designer or a DIYer do after building his own device?
He listens to it and also rightly wants to share his experience.
Then he can also tell us his preferences, if he want to do that.
But what are these preferences?
Could someone list some preference for me?
Could someone in good health and in good faith ever like a sound with strident highs, blurred mids and long, booming lows?
I don't think so.
And, if we wanted, we could start from there and slowly proceed to a different drection.
Cal, if you would like to see this project as something you can also help make happen, please do it, we and Audio just need it.
It can be done.
Only my modest point of view.
Here is one opinion on it: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-you-require-engineering-degree-roles-brian-hagman#:~:text=On the one hand, an,who do not have degrees.
Even that I would say is a bit optimistic. I used to be an engineering manager. I have trained a number of new graduates including some with advanced degrees. It takes time to grow them into experienced engineers. Some learn faster than others and or eventually become more expert than others, of course, but IME they usually benefit a lot from a mentoring in the beginning.
Last edited:
I’d stayed out of this for similar reasons🙂. I don’t want to derail the thread completely by discussing wine tasting, but I was surprised to see this comment. I found that when I was drinking wine reasonably often I could fairly easily discriminate between wines and often recognize several of the elements described in the tasting notes. (Sight unseen by me) Now that my daughter joins us for wine, she occasionally tests “Daddy” to see if what I say is BS! I don’t drink as much as I did, so I get less practice, but I don’t do too badly. As soon as I can no longer do this I’ll switch to the cheapest supermarket wine.
I would add that I have had the good fortune to have friends and family in the trade and have lived in close proximity to some excellent wine shops, so I was exposed to some very good wines, even if I couldn’t afford to buy them very frequently.
I would therefore describe wine tasting as a learned skill. I have never smoked, so I haven’t impaired my sense of taste that way.
Sorry for the off topic! I wish @Logon every success with his quest to find an agreed vocabulary and rating system for the audio experience we all enjoy so much. I thought the soundwheel was an interesting effort.
There may well be people who can't tell the difference between tastes in wine. They can drink whatever they want. But they shouldn't necessarily become winemakers;-)
There are probably also people who can't tell the difference between the sounds of different systems - or deny it. They can listen to what they want, or develop what they want;-) But they shouldn't necessarily become audio developers;-)
... and also let hearing people tell them to keep their hands off audio;-)
Aside: parts, like transistors, sound as different as different wines or beers taste;-)
There are probably also people who can't tell the difference between the sounds of different systems - or deny it. They can listen to what they want, or develop what they want;-) But they shouldn't necessarily become audio developers;-)
... and also let hearing people tell them to keep their hands off audio;-)
Aside: parts, like transistors, sound as different as different wines or beers taste;-)
Here is an excerpt from the article you referenced:
"Engineers with degrees are trained to think critically and solve problems creatively. Engineering programs typically emphasize problem-solving and design skills. Engineers learn how to identify problems, analyze them, and develop creative solutions."
If someone asked what is the one most important thing you learned in studying electrical engineering my answer would be to "clearly define the problem you are trying to solve." It amazed me that over the years in engineering, sales, and marketing how many times people completely ignored this basic principle and proposed solutions to non-defined problems.
If fact I think that may very well be happening here in this very thread.
That is exactly why I said I thought the article was overly optimistic. There is pretty good evidence that schools don't teach people how to thing critically and or creatively. What schools do, especially the highest ranking schools, is flunk out people who don't have natural ability to think critically and or creatively. IOW, in that case schools act as filters to weed out the people who aren't naturally intelligent enough.
Also, regarding learning how to think critically, there is pretty good evidence the ability is domain specific and not very generalizable to other domains.
Not only , there are guys around who " invent" stuff just to appear smart , solving no problems at all 😒
.
This is sheer nonsense. I don't know where you are getting these ideas from regarding higher education, but they are completely the opposite of what is really happening.
You keep talking about "good evidence" but haven't shown any of it.
Some summarized evidence:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31468581/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242479451_Critical_Thinking_Why_Is_It_So_Hard_to_Teach
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654315605917
https://smallpondscience.com/2020/01/27/is-critical-thinking-a-generalized-skill/
https://www.insidehighered.com/view...-skills-are-embedded-college-experience-essay
Also, I was at UC Berkeley EE school. I know when I am being given IQ test type twists to problems based on textbook engineering. Solving the problems required more than understanding what was taught in class. It also required some clever insight into the problem that was added by the instructor just to make it harder to solve. People can't learn to get better at IQ tests. They are extremely hard to practice for or to game. Thus, much later it was clear to me what the noted psychologist Jonathan Haidt was talking about when he described colleges as filters to weed out those with less natural ability.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31468581/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242479451_Critical_Thinking_Why_Is_It_So_Hard_to_Teach
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654315605917
https://smallpondscience.com/2020/01/27/is-critical-thinking-a-generalized-skill/
https://www.insidehighered.com/view...-skills-are-embedded-college-experience-essay
Also, I was at UC Berkeley EE school. I know when I am being given IQ test type twists to problems based on textbook engineering. Solving the problems required more than understanding what was taught in class. It also required some clever insight into the problem that was added by the instructor just to make it harder to solve. People can't learn to get better at IQ tests. They are extremely hard to practice for or to game. Thus, much later it was clear to me what the noted psychologist Jonathan Haidt was talking about when he described colleges as filters to weed out those with less natural ability.
Last edited:
The fact that universities only admit people into engineering programs who have a natural ability to think critically and and creatively makes perfect good sense. To admit people who don't have those skills would be unfair and a disservice to them. They would not succeed in an engineering environment.
Now if your point is that the universities should admit them anyhow and then try somehow to improve their skills in critical thinking I totally disagree. That is not the purpose of universities. Their purpose is to accept people with basic abilities in various fields and further their knowledge and education in that direction. It is not to try to make someone into something that they are not well suited for.
Now if your point is that the universities should admit them anyhow and then try somehow to improve their skills in critical thinking I totally disagree. That is not the purpose of universities. Their purpose is to accept people with basic abilities in various fields and further their knowledge and education in that direction. It is not to try to make someone into something that they are not well suited for.
Maybe. However, how the UC system works is different form the State University system (formerly the California State College system). There they also grant degrees, but they are happy if you can master what is in the books and what is taught in class.
Thus, a UC system degree is more prestigious than a State University degree. The UC system graduate will have jumped through more hoops and shown himself able to overcome the hurdles placed in front of him.
If I hire an engineer from something like the state university system, I know less about how willing they are to work hard and or how clever they are.
Now we are getting into the territory of competence. Someone with any old degree in engineering may or may not be very good at engineering. Also, even people with prestigious degrees may not be interested in working hard for a job. Some like the academic life a lot more than they like the non-academic working world life.
Therefore, there are no guarantees of performance based solely on degrees. That's one reason why Registered Professional Engineers have to have some years of post college experience and pass additional testing to verify competence. Not all engineering occupations require professional registration, but some do. In California at least, one cannot hold himself out as a consulting engineer without professional registration.
Thus, a UC system degree is more prestigious than a State University degree. The UC system graduate will have jumped through more hoops and shown himself able to overcome the hurdles placed in front of him.
If I hire an engineer from something like the state university system, I know less about how willing they are to work hard and or how clever they are.
Now we are getting into the territory of competence. Someone with any old degree in engineering may or may not be very good at engineering. Also, even people with prestigious degrees may not be interested in working hard for a job. Some like the academic life a lot more than they like the non-academic working world life.
Therefore, there are no guarantees of performance based solely on degrees. That's one reason why Registered Professional Engineers have to have some years of post college experience and pass additional testing to verify competence. Not all engineering occupations require professional registration, but some do. In California at least, one cannot hold himself out as a consulting engineer without professional registration.
I would like to see you here much more often instead, your contributions are in my eyes extremely interesting and competent and also brought in a polite and calm manner like few other members are able to do.
Thank you very much.
The world of wine tasting is fitting and it is even more so because it is within everyday and everyone's reach, and for those who want to learn something more about how to taste wine.
Or how to listen to reproduced sound.
This corresponds exactly to the principle of self-exclusion that I've already spoken about, and to the "professional" honesty that comes from recognizing (even publicly) that for one or more reasons one is not in a state of good health and good faith, which are instead two essential and necessary elements.
The kind of attention you put into taking a critical stance, that is, judging something, can be taught (I don't mean by me, but by those who can do it) and can be learned.
And this comment of yours confirms it once again.
Please, when and if you feel like it, show up here more often.
Indeed, yours is one of the most on-topic posts in this thread, without taking anything away from anyone else.
Analogy is a way to satisfy the cravings of logic and it can work very well instead in order to demonstrate a thesis.
If you can do it with taste, and you can do it, you can do it with hearing.
But you have to be in good health and in good faith to succeed. 😉
Thank you very much.
Your comment and your wish have reconciled me and increase my faith in the good part of people.
wWthout wanting to appear to aim too high, I frankly hope so for Audio itself, not so much for myself, and I also find the wheel-mode interesting.
But I also believe that we have to proceed in small steps starting from the simplest things: a basic description of high, mid and bass.
The participation and help of everyone is needed.
they say that the romans loved wine, we today would evalute as terrible.
everything is fleeting, no ear & brain like the other.
I feel that above some ill defined 'normal quality' Hifi gear (and gear size), everything else is super subjective and thus not generalizable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.