Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"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.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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

I believe that Mr. Powell is a troll.

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

However, I do suggest looking at
the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if anyone is interested.

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim


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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"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.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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




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

The BS degree just helps HR sort resumes...

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

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



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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"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.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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



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


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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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