Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JBorg, Jr." wrote:

John Byrns wrote:


Definition of an audiophile:

Anybody who can't tell which of two amplifiers sounds better without
seeing the amplifiers and knowing which one he is listening to.

That doesn't make sense, Mr. Byrns.

What are the standard criteria that form or constitute the
quality of sounding better ? TIA.

In the future, do try to keep these type of garbage out of
Rao.

I guess the truth hurts. If the "engineers can take it why can't you?

One of the consequences of a proper engineering education program is that
the student learns all about the inevitability of making mistakes and how to
manage that reality. Admittedly, a certain percentage of the graduates
quickly forget much of what they learned. Also, a few students manage to
slide through without coming to grips with certain important principles,
like this one.

What is an "engineer" (was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?)
 

One may purchase an engineer for a fairly reasonable hourly rate. You
may not like what they do for you as most (good) engineers tend to be
moderately conservative and want their designs to be moderately
enduring, so most (again, good) engineers tend not to like poor, fast,
quick or dirty solutions.

In my experience, engineers have a completely different mentality / way of
approaching design. One of the byproducts of this mentality is the
conservative nature that you mention, but that is not as big a difference as
the thought process an engineer takes to arrive at his design. It's
difficult to explain however. I can refer to "an engineering mind", and any
of my engineer friends know exactly what I mean, whereas those who are not
engineers tend to scratch their heads.

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Arnii Krooborg, leading Usenet "engineer" ;-) , muttered:

One of the consequences of a proper engineering education program

Lest anybody forget, the Krooborg's "engineering" degree is in something
called "general engineering studies". The Beast started his education at a
community college (for our UK readers, that's like a halfway house between
high school and university). Then, despite the benefits of the G.I. Bill,
Turdy finished his "engineering" studies at a satellite campus of a state
university system. With those sterling credentials, Krooger went on to
become an engineering assistant at Chrysler Motors and a corporate trainer
at IBM.

Arnii Krooger lecturing about "a proper engineering education program" is
no more credible than a newspaper delivery man explaining how to publish
the paper or run a TV station.

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
Andre-

I suspect I've designed and integrated systems for Disney, Apple, NBC,
AT&T, Sony, Techicolor. It is nearly impossible for you to not have
experienced something I've designed and successfully installed
somewhere in this world unless you've hung out with Bin Laden the last
twenty years. Projects include theme parks, stadia, transportation
systems, retail stores, theater, education, and corporate and military
communication. I've worked with superb engineers and truly lousy
ones.

I've also owned and worked on every class of amplifier, every means
of transduction from plasma to electrostatic, and am a member of ASA,
SMPTE, AES (Executive Committee), and the NFPA. I even have a copy of
"Tube or Not Tube", sitting on my desk.

To that end, my immediate reaction is to dismiss you as a somewhat
frustrated learner with a website. I've yet to see a circuit or
transform named after you, see you present a paper at an Audio
Engineering Society convention, or even develop a successful
commercial product. Yet you have an attitude that transcends those
that have. If you are unable to apologize to those you've insulted,
perhaps it would be prudent for you to think about putting your
keyboard away until the maturization process synchonizes up.


Hold that thought! ;-)

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:

Definition of an engineer:

Anybody who can't hear the difference between amplifier A and
amplifier B but states that amplifier B sounds better because it has
less distortion.

Definition of an audiophile:

Anybody who can't tell which of two amplifiers sounds better without
seeing the amplifiers and knowing which one he is listening to.




Excellent John:-)

I have over the years been invited to take part in many
comparison tests. The brief was to be to determine if
two signal capacitors, or two circuit topologies,
or two amplifiers sounded "different"

One was never asked to determine which, if either,
was "better".

So may I play you at your own game and ask how you
define "better" ?

Iain

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:04:09 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:

Definition of an engineer:

Anybody who can't hear the difference between amplifier A and
amplifier B but states that amplifier B sounds better because it has
less distortion.

Definition of an audiophile:

Anybody who can't tell which of two amplifiers sounds better without
seeing the amplifiers and knowing which one he is listening to.




Excellent John:-)

I have over the years been invited to take part in many
comparison tests. The brief was to be to determine if
two signal capacitors, or two circuit topologies,
or two amplifiers sounded "different"

One was never asked to determine which, if either,
was "better".

So may I play you at your own game and ask how you
define "better" ?

Iain





We're talking audiophile here - clearly the one that costs ten times
as much as the other.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Pearce dons his 'borg suit and joins the snot parade.

So may I play you at your own game and ask how you
define "better" ?

We're talking audiophile here - clearly the one that costs ten times
as much as the other.

Have you considered joining Snotters Anonymous, Don? Individuals who are
only partially assimiliated and still mostly human have reported salutary
results from participating. Along with a reduction in spiteful snot
emissions, they have also experienced improvements in skin tone, decreased
desire to poop all the time, and greater appreciation of music.

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:

Definition of an engineer:

Anybody who can't hear the difference between amplifier A and
amplifier B but states that amplifier B sounds better because it has
less distortion.

Definition of an audiophile:

Anybody who can't tell which of two amplifiers sounds better without
seeing the amplifiers and knowing which one he is listening to.


Excellent John:-)

I have over the years been invited to take part in many
comparison tests. The brief was to be to determine if
two signal capacitors, or two circuit topologies,
or two amplifiers sounded "different"

One was never asked to determine which, if either,
was "better".

So may I play you at your own game and ask how you
define "better" ?


I used the word "better" in conjunction with the word "sounds", when I
say an "amplifier sounds better", I mean that the listener prefers the
sound of that amplifier over that of the amplifiers it is being compared
against. "Sounds better" is a subjective thing individual to each
listener, and is not related to the objective accuracy of reproduction
an amplifier may be capable of.

Other factors besides the sound of an amplifier enter into whether one
amplifier is better than another in an all around sense, but these
factors are separate from an amplifiers sound qualities and should not
enter into judgments of whether one amplifier has "better sound" than
another.

Some of the other factors include but are not limited to:

1. Reliability

2. Ease of Use

3. Flexibility of application

4. Styling/visual appeal

5. Cachet of manufacturers name

6. Price


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

John Byrns wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
John Byrns wrote:




Definition of an audiophile:

Anybody who can't tell which of two amplifiers sounds better without
seeing the amplifiers and knowing which one he is listening to.

That doesn't make sense, Mr. Byrns.

What are the standard criteria that form or constitute the
quality of sounding better ? TIA.

In the future, do try to keep these type of garbage out of
Rao.

I guess the truth hurts. If the "engineers can take it why can't you?


Regards,

John Byrns


Your not really making sense here but I do like the letter you send in
respond to Iain Churches below. All is well.

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

One question is,

"Can you tell the difference, in a double blind test, between an
Audiophile humming Old Langs Syne and an Engineer humming it."

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:19:20 -0700, Andy Evans
wrote:

One question is,

"Can you tell the difference, in a double blind test, between an
Audiophile humming Old Langs Syne and an Engineer humming it."


Another easy one. The engineer will hum it in tune.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

"Can you tell the difference, in a double blind test, between an
Audiophile humming Old Langs Syne and an Engineer humming it."

Another easy one. The engineer will hum it in tune.

Presumably the Audiophile will hum it with more feeling and claim that
this is more important than humming it in tune!

Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre-

One, I'm sorry I got sucked into this thread, so this will be my last
entry into it.

In my career I've managed a couple of hundred audio engineers ranging
from superb to poor. Each has had unique skills and abilities, and I
always thought it was my responsibility to provide an environment
appropriate to bring out their best. Collectively they have done very
specials things on billions of dollars of projects, including
specialty component designs. Every system reflects a bit of the
character of its designer.

I once worked with a guy that couldn't get his EPSON printer to work
with his computer- he spent literally hundreds of hours perplexed over
the problem, including sending the printer back to Japan. Turned out
it was a bad cable he had hand made. What an idiot!

His name was Dick Heyser, a name you should know if you have any
pretense of being in this business. Besides reprogramming America's
satellites in orbit, he spent this spare time inventing Time Delay
Spectrometry, the TEF analyzer, writing for Audio Magazine, and his
created own math transform. Smartest guy I've ever met. There's a
reason the highest honor the Audio Engineering Society named their
award after him.

I can't help but think you've never experienced working on an
engineering and production team and likely never will with your
issues, clearly having nothing to do with providing the world with
better audio.

If you don't know of what you speak, it may be best to shut your pie
hole. Or in your case, your keyboard. Unless you plan on apologizing
to those you've insulted first.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

wrote:

Andre-

One, I'm sorry I got sucked into this thread, so this will be my last
entry into it.

Nah, anonymous "emmaco", you didn't get sucked in, you read the
headline, misunderstood it, and without discovering the facts dived
into the staked pit face-first, fully justifying the Time Magazine
rhetorical question, "Why are engineers the ugliest people in the
world?"

In my career I've managed a couple of hundred audio engineers ranging
from superb to poor. Each has had unique skills and abilities, and I
always thought it was my responsibility to provide an environment
appropriate to bring out their best. Collectively they have done very
specials things on billions of dollars of projects, including
specialty component designs. Every system reflects a bit of the
character of its designer.

So why don't you tell me your name so I can check your claims? This is
the third time of asking, and still no name, only anonymous bragging.

I once worked with a guy that couldn't get his EPSON printer to work
with his computer- he spent literally hundreds of hours perplexed over
the problem, including sending the printer back to Japan. Turned out
it was a bad cable he had hand made. What an idiot!

So you say. I might say he's a perfectionist. I once spent several
hundred hours rewriting 43 thick volumes of instructions for an early
computer that irritated me by their obscure prolixity into a single
slender volume; my obsessively fat-pared version was so much more
effective, the manufacturer gave it way with the computer.

His name was Dick Heyser,

It figures that a jumped-up, self-important bureaucrat like you would
call Dick Heyser "an idiot".

a name you should know if you have any
pretense of being in this business.

I'm not in your business except peripherally, thought it is true that
to those with terminal cases of inferiority complex, like you, I seem
to leave hairy footprints.

But in this instance I merely objected to people who call themselves
engineers lying about physics, and of course I object to blustering
fools like you trying to protect them by swingeing attacks on me.

Besides reprogramming America's
satellites in orbit, he spent this spare time inventing Time Delay
Spectrometry, the TEF analyzer, writing for Audio Magazine, and his
created own math transform. Smartest guy I've ever met.

Make up your mind, will you? Just now you called Heyser "an idiot".

There's a
reason the highest honor the Audio Engineering Society named their
award after him.

Indeed; those guys got that one right.

I can't help but think you've never experienced working on an
engineering and production team

You're wrong. But then your unfounded and unproven assumptions about
so much else are so invariably wrong, I've given up expecting sense
from you, anonymous "emmaco".

and likely never will with your
issues,

Do you know, anonymous "emmaco", in another of my professions they
will drum you out of the profession for snap diagnoses on zero
evidence such as you are so fond of.

clearly having nothing to do with providing the world with
better audio.

That's a matter of opinion. My netsite
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
comes rather well recommended by people who aren't afraid to sign
their own names:
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Leading me to ask once more, who are you, anonymous "emmacocao"?

If you don't know of what you speak,

You have failed to prove a single element of which I spoke in
ignorance, whereas we see, again in this post, that you vomit out
opinions without foundation, without adducing argument, without
reason. Hey, sonny, an engineer might be no more than mechanical
appendix to science, a sort of jumped-up handyman, except not so
versatile as a real craftsman, but that doesn't relieve you of the
necessity of observing and respecting scientific method, in particular
the rules of proof. If you're looking for a digestible introduction to
scientific method, let me recommend to you the books of Karl Popper.

it may be best to shut your pie
hole.

What did you say your name was again, anonymous "emmaco"? Lysenko?
Will the jackboots come for me in the night for contradicting you? I
have news for you, sonny: sovereign governments, including the
apartheid government, eminently competent at violence, sent assassins
after me, and I returned one lot maimed for life as a message not to
**** with me, the next lot in boxes, and followed that up with a
threat to the government minister who sent them (I thought it amusing
to do it on Chrismas morning) that had him interrupting my mother's
holiday lunch to beg for the lives of his family. Squadrons of little
pompass engineers (holy ****, engineers, guys with protectors and
coloured pencils in their pockets!) don't cause the slightest shiver
up my backbone.

Or in your case, your keyboard.

My keyboard is definitely mightier than the sword, as I just
demonstrated.

Unless you plan on apologizing
to those you've insulted first.

Yes, I understand. If I grovel and crawl to the "engineers", among
whom I have now firmly placed you, I can spout any old crap, and you
guys will gather round and shout down anyone who contradicts me.

No thanks, I don't need that sort of pernicious "solidarity".

Unless you plan on apologizing
to those you've insulted first.

Furthermore, this is where we came in, where you lied that I offended
all engineers, whereas, as I have told you three times already, you
functional illiterate, I insulted only three particular "engineers",
whom I named and apostrophized to distinguish them from the many sound
engineers I know, and now you, of course, for obvious cause, because
you are thick and obdurate and offensive and stupid and illiterate.

I'm sorry I got sucked into this thread, so this will be my last
entry into it.

You don't have what it takes to enter rational discussion. You don't
even have the balls or the wit to conduct a minor flame war, anonymous
"emmacopout".

I'm sorry I got sucked into this thread, so this will be my last
entry into it.

Run, rabbit, run.

Flicked off my thumb like a piece of snot.

Unsigned out of contempt

PS Jesus Christ! Is this uncomprehending twit anonymous "emmaco" the
best champion you guys on rec.audio.pro can put forward for the
"honour" of engineers? What are you professionals at, then? Lying,
simpering and expecting unearned flattery?

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Name's John Mayberry. Dick Heyser was a friend. Also taught me how
to use his new machine back in the early 80's.

www.emmaco.com if you'd like to compare professional
accomplishments.

I bet I specified more A/V equipment this week than you've ever
touched in your life.

We're in San Marino, California. It was sunny and warm today.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was at a board meeting for
the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering Society last night on XM
Satellite radio audio and data transmission. Sadly, we missed you
there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society recent meetings as
well. Everyone was asking, "Where is that wonderful Andre Jute? The
world just doesn't rotate without him..."

You might want to read my monthly column in Systems Contractor News.
Inside back cover for the last 14 years. You might have recognized
the email address had you ever worked in this business.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

I picked one of your website topics at random just to see what talent
resides within... I chose

"Point source speakers"

You selected the Lowther Fidelio as your example. This is a folded
transmission line speaker enclosure using the EX2 drive unit with
integral phase plug.

In no way is this a good example of a point source loudspeaker.

The phase plug "equalizer" alone would disqualify it, let alone
loading the woofer with the complex acoustic impedance of a
transmission line. Think about what that plug is doing- changing the
path length of the signal transmission in order to lower the
directivity index and decrease on axis beaming. They are commonly
used in professional audio (see Engebretson's Altec Tangerine phase
plug paper from the early '70s for reference) compression horn
tweeters. The device has a number of different copyrighted names, but
the effect is the same- signal smearing.

The Nyquist plot of this speaker is going to be all over the place, as
will the polar plot as a result.

You really need to do your homework and crack open the textbooks to at
least understand what makes up a point source loudspeaker prior to
pontificating on it. Don Davis's Sound System Engineering might be a
good start.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 1, 2:11 am, " wrote:
Name's John Mayberry. Dick Heyser was a friend. Also taught me how
to use his new machine back in the early 80's.

Well, howdedo. I'm more impressed by the names you drop than by your
unprofessionally aggressive behaviour.

www.emmaco.comif you'd like to compare professional
accomplishments.

Good God, no. Now that you have, at last, told me your name, I have no
desire to go check on you. A gentleman takes others at their word.

if you'd like to compare professional
accomplishments.

As for the invitation "cocks on the table", I have nothing to prove,
and I'm sure you'll stop trying to prove something to me as soon as
you recover your confidence.

I bet I specified more A/V equipment this week than you've ever
touched in your life.

Absolutely! I don't operate machines. I don't even know what "A/V
equipment" is. I generally, since the days I was a soldier who
couldn't be bothered to carry firearms, just tell people what I want
achieved and let them choose and operate the machines; that's what one
has engineers for; they should earn their keep.

We're in San Marino, California. It was sunny and warm today.

Super. I have lived in the Irish countryside for over a quarter-
century; I was the first in my line of business to go entirely
electronic, goodbye big office, goodbye paper. Today I took a call
from a client who inherited me from his father, 37 years of annual
retainers, cycled for a couple of hours, took steam and for another
couple of hours lay in my bath with a jug of Campari-soda reading a
novel by one of my protege, then dined at The Snug in Bantry to escape
the Halloweenies and lawyers and accountants who are keen to finalize
tax accounts, due date, er, yesterday. Most of my days are of course
not that highly pressured.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was at a board meeting for
the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering Society last night on XM
Satellite radio audio and data transmission. Sadly, we missed you
there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society recent meetings as
well. Everyone was asking, "Where is that wonderful Andre Jute? The
world just doesn't rotate without him..."

I'm impressed with their discrimination, no doubt gently guided by
you, as always, to the right decision.

But I'm amazed that a man as important as you has to go to meetings to
get things done. It is decades since I last went anywhere; those who
want me face to face come here.

You might want to read my monthly column in Systems Contractor News.
Inside back cover for the last 14 years.

I'll have to ask someone who deals with techies what Systems
Contractor News is, but I'm sure it is very, very important in your
trade.

You might have recognized
the email address had you ever worked in this business.

I'm still not sure what business it is you're in. Do you sall
apoplectic bluster?

Andre Jute
Compared to this guy, my middle name is "Humility"!

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 1, 2:49 am, " wrote:
I picked one of your website topics at random just to see what talent
resides within... I chose

Ooh, that should bring some excitement to your day. But, tell me, Mr
Mayberry, wouldn't your wife and children prefer you rather to keep
your mind on earning a living?

"Point source speakers"

I wrote about point source speakers? Well, you can knock me over with
a feather.

You selected the Lowther Fidelio as your example. This is a folded
transmission line speaker enclosure using the EX2 drive unit with
integral phase plug.

Erm. It's a dual-channel horn; the horn is behind the driver, rather
than in front of it as in the sort of PA speakers you are no doubt
used to. Once you know that, perhaps you will wish to work out the
expansion without me telling you, just to show how much smarter than
me you are. There's a good picture of a Fidelio-type horn under
construction in my studio somewhere on my netsite.

In no way is this a good example of a point source loudspeaker.

Perhaps not from your perspective. I imagine Fidelio enclosures and
Lowther drivers would be a bit expensive for your system.

The phase plug "equalizer" alone would disqualify it, let alone
loading the woofer with the complex acoustic impedance of a
transmission line.

Do you really think so? Even better, do you really think that, given
the fact that you have already failed to bully me into submission, I
care **** what you think?

Think about what that plug is doing- changing the
path length of the signal transmission in order to lower the
directivity index and decrease on axis beaming. They are commonly
used in professional audio (see Engebretson's Altec Tangerine phase
plug paper from the early '70s for reference) compression horn
tweeters.

That's what techies are useful for, Mayberry. Why don't you make us a
precis of the paper and we'll decide if it is relevant or perhaps
interesting even if irrelevant.

The device has a number of different copyrighted names, but
the effect is the same- signal smearing.

The Nyquist plot of this speaker is going to be all over the place, as
will the polar plot as a result.

Actually, I own a couple of pairs of Fidelio with PM6A. I don't need
some clown who's never heard or seen one telling me what "this speaker
is going to be", I already know.

You really need to do your homework and crack open the textbooks to at
least understand what makes up a point source loudspeaker prior to
pontificating on it.

Crap. A point source speaker creates a sound emanating or seeming to
emanate from a single point. The "seeming: to take account of my Quad
ESL63 with their faux point source.

Don Davis's Sound System Engineering might be a
good start.

What a pedantic waste of time you are, Mayberry. Didn't it occur to
your cramped mind that I own these speakers and have measured them
but, even better, listened to them? Who cares about a "good start"
when you can instead make a permanently satisfying finish?

Are we done yet?

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

John:

You are mud-wrestling with a pig. It serves no purpose and the pig
enjoys it. Andre is an irredeemable hack with just enough knowledge to
be dangerous, but not enough to have learned anything of significance
or note. He has a "way with language" much as Don Joan has a "way with
women", but with about the same general results - nothing.

So, let it rest. When Andre is unchallenged he spouts rubbish and
pretense. When he is challenged he lies. And his general habit is to
repeat the lie ad nauseum in the hopes that if it is read often enough
some poor benighted fool might come to believe it - perhaps he might
even come to believe it himself.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre

You appear to be a troubled individual, yet I will attempt to answer
your audio question. Two of the systems we have operating right now
are based on Quad 988s and Hill Plasmatronics 1A's, both far better
examples of emulating a point source in a nearfield environment. The
988s (we retired the 63s and 57s) are a fine speaker system but
nothing close to a full range plasma.

Admittedly the Plasmatronics only range from 700 Hz to 30 kHz, but
their amplitude and phase linearity is astonishing. The midbass and
woofer drivers have been re-engineered and arrival times
electronically compensated to maiximze the ETC response quality. It
is a much better approximation of the theoretical point source, and
trust me there's been more cash and effort thrown into the system than
is rational.

I'm happy that you enjoy the system you own and hope you get many
hours of continued listening from them. Yet the fact that you own
them and like them does not make them a world reference standard, nor
you an expert on sound reproduction accuracy. I'll spend my time
reading a Jens Blauert book if I'm looking for that.

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction. Don't get me wrong, it's up there with the
Cadillac V16's, but practically speaking the Bugatti Veyron of today's
world is vastly superior.

As you suggest, it's time for me to get back to the paying clients
now.


..

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article .com,
" wrote:

Andre

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.
--scott

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

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

I think you may be putting words in John's mouth, let's not assume,
let's see what he says. With regard to RF, Neutralization can do
wonders, although grid to plate capacitance isn't the only
characteristic that can inhibit operation at RF. My point however was
that there is a large gap between "voice" frequencies and RF which
contains frequencies important to music reproduction, and John was
implying that the 300B was limited in reproducing these higher audio
frequencies above the "voice" frequency range.

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 1, 2:11 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:



John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

I also spent some time looking at your tube amplification studies.
As you may have seen from our website, one of our clients over the
years has been AT&T, the former parent of Western Electric. I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Granted the 300B may not be the best choice for operation at 100 MHz,
however I am having some trouble getting a grip on the concept that the
300B was somehow "deliberately bandlimited to maximize voice
reproduction", can you elaborate on how this was accomplished?

I'm assuming he's referring to the grid structure, which is not exactly
designed for lowest possible capacitance, but instead for higher gain.
Which is, of course, a good compromise for the design application even
if the miller effect will kill you at RF.

I think you may be putting words in John's mouth, let's not assume,
let's see what he says. With regard to RF, Neutralization can do
wonders, although grid to plate capacitance isn't the only
characteristic that can inhibit operation at RF. My point however was
that there is a large gap between "voice" frequencies and RF which
contains frequencies important to music reproduction, and John was
implying that the 300B was limited in reproducing these higher audio
frequencies above the "voice" frequency range.

I've written to John Mayberry about this amusing claim of his:

****

You also say about the 300B that it is
[...] deliberately bandlimited to maximize
voice reproduction.

Whoever told you so has an odd idea of the range of the human voice. I
suspect you just made it up on the spot to suit the argument. It is
for making up crap to suit the argument that I stepped on those three
"engineers" Poopie Stevenson, Slapdash Krueger and Bluster Pearce.

FYI, it is no problem whatsoever making a 300B give whatever audio
range bandwidth you desire. Zero NFB, class A1 300B in either SE or PP
are normally limited at the top end by the transformer rather than the
tube and at the lower end are normally deliberately limited either to
avoid turntable rumble getting into the speakers or, in the case of
horns like the Fidelio, to avoid the diaphragm causing distortion or
even being damaged when it almost instantly becomes unloaded below Fs.
You do know all this, don't you, Mayberry?

Or don't you do high fidelity in A/V (and I still don't know what A/V
is)?

You could do yourself a favour and build a ZNFB Class A1 PP amp with
300B to drive your Quads. It will blow you away--and give you a
permanent case of schizophrenia to know that something with such an
"unacceptable" THD number can sound so good! When you pick yourself up
from the floor, come ask on politely RAT and I'll explain to you how
the dichotomy arises. You'll kick yourself for not seeing something so
simple.

*****

We'll see if he has a plausible explanation for the gulf between his
statement and the experience of those who actually work with the
300B..

The 6L6, on the other hand, will put out close to rated power at 3.5 MHz,
reasonable power at 7 MHz, and barely detectable power at 28 MHz.

I have also explained to Mayberry that there is a different way of
looking at dissipation than the one that comes naturally ot him:

****
I was
able to tour the Midwest 300B plant years ago where they still made
tubes designed back in the 1930s. Nice tube, but as I recall it was
only rated for ten watts and [...]

Well, for a start, calling the 300B a 10W tube is marketing department
horsepower-advertising exaggeration. Only a fool believes there are
more than 7 clean watts in a 300B. On my netsite you will find a
hedonist's 300B amp called T39 KISS (in honour of the greatest
engineering principle of them all); it puts out a glorious single-
ended 3.8W with, of course, zero negative feedback. If taste is your
primary prerequisite, the "engineering" fallacy of "efficiency" which
leads to hogging out all the power, which in turns requires ugly NFB
to clean up the distortion, becomes a total irrelevance. Oh, by the
way, more in your line of country, my T39 is also the booster amp for
an insane P/SE 25-80W transmitting tube amp to drive stacked ESL63 to
party volumes (T199 Millennium's End); I found it to be quite
unnecessary and broke it up and substituted my T113 Triple Threat EL34
Class A PP, maybe 20W on a good day -- more than enough to drive a
pair of ESL63 (that's not a provocation; it works).

If you had sensitive point source speakers like the Fidelio, you too
could have heavenly sound from tubes "rated only ten watts". You
listen to your speakers, man, not your amp.

*****

We'll have to wait and see if he understands what I'm getting at or if
his mind is locked up tighter than a Vassar virgin's girdle.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

If the guy now starts being less hostile, we might consider changing
the name of the thread to give poor Scott Dorsey few palpitations.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre- you started this thread stating, "Those three substandard jerks
are an embarrassment to decent, honest
engineers everywhere." Ironically, you have similarly glaring
mistakes in your own website.

Yet when you were called on it, you first challenged my education,
skillsets, professional achievements, and even my identity. In the
short time I looked at your site, I found dozens of similar errors.

When I called you on each issue in turn you eventually went after my
attitude, the last refuge of those who've already lost their argument.

Whatever shell you hide in or behind to justify your anger, you don't
appear to have sufficient character to apologize to those you've
offended. It might be best to let some of it go; it can only hurt you
in the long run.


P.S. AV is short for Audio and Video, systems commonly intertwined in
the modern world. Yes, I was Director of Operations at Maryland
Sound for awhile as well. Not sure what the relevance is, but we did
do some large systems and tours at the time.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

Andre- do you have any idea what the Western Electric 300B was
originally designed to do? That's right, amplify voice frequencies
for telephone repeaters to compensate for line losses. That's how
telephone companies supplied long distance service back in the
1930's. I have the original manual for it around here somewhere,
signed by some of the original WE engineers. Here's a modern review
of it,

"Yup, how could any review covering 300B variants be complete without
the ever lovely Western Electric 300B? Please let me say right up
front that i love the midrange. It is one of those midranges that
make you want to crawl up in it and stay warm, cuddly, and happy.
Especially if you have a not so smooth digital front end, the WE300B
can be just what the doctor ordered! Alas, not all is perfect
though. The extreme uppermost and lowermost frequencies aren't quite
reproduced as well as the KR Enterprise 300BXLS or even the Art Audio
or JJ, but are better then the hazy Centron 300B to my ears.

When comparing the weight of the tube itself, the WE300B seems really
lightweight when compared to the KR Enterprise tubes too. It's an
amazing weight difference! The WE300 is very lightweight physically.
Still, the sound has all the charm you could ever ask for in the
crucial midrange where a better part of the music resides."
Surprisingly, the midrange frequencies are also the voice frequencies
used in telephone systems... I have an increasingly harder time
believing you have the slightest idea of what you're writing about.

If an OTL, SE, Zero NFB, 1 watt amplifier is your version of
perfection, then so be it. Uh, let's just say it's been done
(Futterman and Gizmo Rosenberg come to mind) and leave it at that.
They sound great at very low levels. You'd need compression horns
for them to really do anything with them though. Quads at 83 dB/SPL/1
Metre just don't cut it.

Much of what you appear to be discovering has already been stolen by
the ancients.

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 4, 4:23 am, " wrote:
Andre- you started this thread stating, "Those three substandard jerks
are an embarrassment to decent, honest
engineers everywhere." Ironically, you have similarly glaring
mistakes in your own website.

Then you should liste them and we can discuss them one by one. For you
to say "you have similarly glaring mistakes in your own website"
without specifying them so that I may reply is a McCarthyite smear.
Furthermore, it presumes that you know enough to spot such errors. I
for one, given your history with me so far, am not willing to make any
such assumption. Provide proof or **** off.

Yet when you were called on it,

Lie No. 1. You didn't "call" me on anything.

you first challenged my education,

Lie No. 2. Far from challenging your education, I congratulated you on
it.

skillsets,

Lie No. 3. I congratulated you on those as well.

professional achievements,

Lie No. 4. Nope. I merely stated that without your name, I didn't know
who you were and therefore could not check your claims. That is not a
"challenge", that is a statement of fact about your rude lack of a
signature to your letters.

and even my identity.

Lie No. 5. This is bull****. I didn't "challenge" your identity, I
said it was unknown, absent, unsigned. That is an observation, not a
challenge.

In the
short time I looked at your site, I found dozens of similar errors.

If you don't list them, with your reasons for believing them to be
errors, this is merely a McCarthyite smear. How do we even know you
are capable of spotting an electronic error? You could be making this
up from thin air.

When I called you on each issue

Remind us of each of these "issues" and provide proof that you told
anyone, otherwise you are a liar.

in turn you eventually went after my
attitude, the last refuge of those who've already lost their argument.

We haven't had an argument about electronics yet. The only argument
we've had is about your arrogant assumption that you know something I
don't. (You probably do, about electronics. So what? You should!
Electronics is your profession and my hobby. I know more about an
untold number of subjects than you do but, again, so what? I should;
I'm a communicator, not a techie.) We have so far seen no proof that
you know anything I want to know.

Whatever shell you hide in or behind to justify your anger, you don't
appear to have sufficient character to apologize to those you've
offended.

You came here for the specific purpose of being offended. Why should I
care **** about you? I find your cod-psychology both personally and
professionally offensive, but I'm not asking you for an apology; these
offences you give are incidental to you being an ugly engineer,
individible from you character, training and profession. See the
headline.

It might be best to let some of it go; it can only hurt you
in the long run.

Thank you for the advice, Mayberry. I shan't presume to offer you any
free advice.

P.S. AV is short for Audio and Video, systems commonly intertwined in
the modern world.

Oh, yes, I see. What I meant to imply is obsolete and old-fashioned
when a long time ago in Toronto I invented the word "multimedia".

Yes, I was Director of Operations at Maryland
Sound for awhile as well.

What's the affirmative "Yes" for? No one asked you to brag some more.

Not sure what the relevance is,

None.

but we did
do some large systems and tours at the time.

So what? I toured with Jim Reeves when I was a boy but that's hardly
an argument worth spit in this discussion. However, John D Loudermilk
was also on that tour, and if you can tell without looking him up why
I am prouder of that small detail, then you get a brownie point.

So, list your "issues", sonny, complete with technical argument, or
stand still while I call you a liar.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

In article . com,
" wrote:

Andre- do you have any idea what the Western Electric 300B was
originally designed to do? That's right, amplify voice frequencies
for telephone repeaters to compensate for line losses. That's how
telephone companies supplied long distance service back in the
1930's. I have the original manual for it around here somewhere,
signed by some of the original WE engineers.

Two points, first I seriously doubt the 300A/B was designed for use in
voice frequency telephone repeaters, can you cite a model number for
even one voice frequency telephone repeater that used the 300A/B? I
have studied a number of vintage voice frequency telephone repeaters and
the 300A/B just doesn't fit the mold of the tubes that were used in any
voice frequency telephone repeater I have ever heard of. If you don't
understand the several reasons why the 300A/B doesn't fit that
application, then Andre has correctly pegged you. It appears that you
have made this "telephone repeater" story up out of whole cloth, can we
have an example of an actual voice frequency telephone repeater that
used the 300A/B?

Second, I don't know what application the 300A/B was originally designed
for, I have heard claims that it was designed for applications even
lower on the totem pole than "voice frequency" amplification, while
those claims are possible, my gut tells it is unlikely for various
reasons. But let's assume that you are correct and that the 300A/B was
originally designed to "amplify voice frequencies", how would that make
the tube unsuitable for use in High-Fidelity amplifiers? What counts
are the specifications of the tube and its suitability for the
application, not some vague notion that it was only designed to "amplify
voice frequencies". Can you give a technical justification why the
300A/B is less suitable for High-Fidelity use than other common audio
tubes?

Given your posting history I won't hold my breath waiting for
substantive answers to these questions.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"Why are engineers the ugliest people in the world?" -- Time Magazine, was Why are "engineers" so poorly educated?
 

On Nov 4, 5:08 am, " wrote:
Andre- do you have any idea what the Western Electric 300B was
originally designed to do? That's right, amplify voice frequencies
for telephone repeaters to compensate for line losses. That's how
telephone companies supplied long distance service back in the
1930's. I have the original manual for it around here somewhere,
signed by some of the original WE engineers. Here's a modern review
of it,

This is getting tiresome. Who is the review by? How the **** am I
supposed to conclude anything from it unless I know who wrote it?

"Yup, how could any review covering 300B variants be complete without
the ever lovely Western Electric 300B? Please let me say right up
front that i love the midrange. It is one of those midranges that
make you want to crawl up in it and stay warm, cuddly, and happy.
Especially if you have a not so smooth digital front end, the WE300B
can be just what the doctor ordered! Alas, not all is perfect
though. The extreme uppermost and lowermost frequencies aren't quite
reproduced as well as the KR Enterprise 300BXLS or even the Art Audio
or JJ, but are better then the hazy Centron 300B to my ears.

Okay. So? Who says all this? I have KR tubes too, put into my hands by
Mrs Kron herself. And I have the JJ prototype 300B lab samples. And a
lot of other 300B, including WE. But so what?

Next, does the quotation continue below or is this you speaking now,
Mayberry? It is offensively careless of you not to place the quotation
marks in the right place for us to tell when the anonymous "reviewer"
stops talking and you start again.

When comparing the weight of the tube itself, the WE300B seems really
lightweight when compared to the KR Enterprise tubes too. It's an
amazing weight difference! The WE300 is very lightweight physically.

This guy writes like an oldtime music hall comic: Tell you you're
going to tell them, then tell them what you're going to tell them,
then tell them you've told them. WTF does the light weight of physical
WE tube have to do with anything?

Still, the sound has all the charm you could ever ask for in the
crucial midrange where a better part of the music resides."

So?

Surprisingly, the midrange frequencies are also the voice frequencies
used in telephone systems... I have an increasingly harder time
believing you have the slightest idea of what you're writing about.

You should take a course in logic, Mayberry. Your anonymous reviewer,
who merely by his "Yup!" style already fails to inspire confiedence,
does not, repeat not, say that the 300B isn't any good outside the
midrange. You have jumped to that conclusion. Then, from one false
conclusion to jump to another:
I have an increasingly harder time
believing you have the slightest idea of what you're writing about.

Why should I care **** what an illogical braggart like you thinks? You
have so far not shown me a single reason not to consider this exchange
as anything but a waste of time writing to a blusttering fool who
catches his cheapies denigrating those he sees as "challengers".

Get it through your thick head, Mayberry. I don't care **** who you
think you are. I am not interested in challenging you. If you can help
me build a better amp, I shall praise you in public; if not, don't
waste my time or your fragile self-confidence will be further
undermined.

If an OTL, SE, Zero NFB, 1 watt amplifier is your version of
perfection, then so be it.

You should also take a course in English comprehension, Mayberry. I
didn't say that either. Furthermore, you should go back to EE school,
if you ever attended one, because on the avidence immediately above,
you cannot even read a schematic. There are no, none, zero OTL tube
amps on my netsite. Perhaps you were looking at someone else's
netsite.

Uh, let's just say it's been done

Really? The ancients built potato amps? The ancients drove SE300B with
battery-biased 417A. Holy Moses! Show us the schematics, sonny.

(Futterman and Gizmo Rosenberg come to mind) and leave it at that.

Harvey Rosenberg sent me a nice note and an affectionately signed copy
of his book when he built one of my designs. He didn't claim he did it
before. (You apparently know very little about Gizmo either. Your
propensity for name-dropping does not enhance your credibility,
Mayberry.)

They sound great at very low levels. You'd need compression horns
for them to really do anything with them though. Quads at 83 dB/SPL/1
Metre just don't cut it.

Oh dear. You know very little about me, Mayberry, and you haven't even
read my replies to your letters with attention. Besides the low output
amps and horns, I also built 80W SE tube amps for driving
electrostats, and of course the usual Class A trioded PP Class A amp
that every sensible audiophile has for the best match to electrostatic
speakers.

And you haven't got your brain in gear. (An amazing oversight for
someone who claims PA experience.) If you want more sound, you just
stack as many ESL63 as are required and use a little ingenuity in
placement. You might read my article on Bessel Arrays.

Much of what you appear to be discovering has already been stolen by
the ancients.

Lucky them. So why do you want to **** on my parade of excitement?

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain