Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,

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

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

I suppose you tried inverting the driver?


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

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

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

David Looser wrote:

Actually the thread is about spikes, note the thread title.

So it was, but then we all settled for chatting about something meaningful.
And if you wanna use three spikes then it really really had better be for a
corner box.

I guess we don't know which corner speaker *you're* talking about,
then.

No you don't, as I told you.

Then stop playing your silly undefined variable game and tell us what
speakear it is about.

David

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

David Looser wrote:

"Eiron" wrote

Maybe they thought you were talking generally about speakers in
corners rather than the specific one which your grandfather built.

Scott replied as though corner speakers could only be horns, fair
enough if that's the only sorts he's met.

Actually it always was the case that there was only one other good technical
reason for a dedicated "corner only" design, and that other reason was to
save bricks and building time. Which is to say that the only "classic era"
corner bass reflex box known to me is the one designed by Briggs for a 12"
and I can't remember what else, probably a two-way.

I simply pointed out that
the one I was talking about was a bass-reflex. But then Richard
Crowley crashed in with "If you had ever seen one, you would know
better", clearly indicating that he had no idea what the point of my
comment had been, or indeed on the flow of thread up to that point.

People here are really incompetent like and don't know that they are not
supposed to type comments into a thread between you and somebody else.

Then GregS comes in with "So it might be either or both" when it is
clear from the context that "it" is the speaker I was talking about.
Yes I get ****ed-off when people tell me that I would "know better"
simply because they are incapable of following a thread!

This is because the good people here are not only technically incompetent,
they also do not have manners and they don't know the prior state of the
art. You should have seen this earlier on and understood that because of
their vast technnical ignorance they didn't know what corner box you were
speaking about and then you should have told them and provided a web link to
description and photos.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...eld/page01.jpg

Is the one I'd like to have, way better midrange unit that the Klipsch box.

David

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
...




oopths

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

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

Meindert

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article ,
Meindert Sprang wrote:
"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
...




oopths

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

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

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:17:54 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...eld/page01.jpg

Is the one I'd like to have, way better midrange unit that the Klipsch box.

I love the "Koustical lens" :-)

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:41:51 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

Meindert

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Dave Plowman (News) says...

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

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Laurence Payne says...

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

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

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


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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , "Meindert Sprang" wrote:
"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
...




oopths

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

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


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

greg

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"James Harris" wrote

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

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

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


Anyone heard of a kit to convert four spikes to three?

Some speaker manufactures use only three spikes. Two
in the front and one in the back. This makes adjusting
tweeter face rake adjustments much easier too.


It would have to fit beneath the existing arrangement as I don't
want to modify the speakers (which are Dynaudio Audience
62 floorstanders).

Spike sources, check out:
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/ind...?cPath=404_121
http://www.musicdirect.com/category/49


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


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


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

This is the least desirable of the alternatives you've site so far.

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , Powell
wrote:

"James Harris" wrote

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

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

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

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

"Work" means?...

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/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
 

Keith G wrote:

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

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...phtExtract.mp3

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


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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The Rogers 'BBC Studio Monitors' I had here a while back were
'thinwall/resonating' types and sounded very good indeed,

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

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

I suppose you tried inverting the driver?


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

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

If it was like the original BC1, the actual power handling was very low.
About 25 watts.


Yes, exactly so:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ogersLabel.JPG

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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

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

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

In theory, all things being equal (concrete's mass will convert
more sound energy to heat more efficiently as compared to wood
which tends to resonate. Many high end speaker manufactures
like Wilson Audio, B&W, Egglestonworks and others
construct speaker cabinets out of synthetic compounds,
stone, or aluminum for this reason., for example. Of course
in practice it is more a complicated subject because of Q
value effects.

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


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

"Work" means?...

For maximum effectiveness spikes should not be run
through any type of carpet interface (carpet/foam).
If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate. The tightly
woven jute backing and under pad is the problem.
The conical shape of spikes simply will not couple
to the sub-floor... and I mean tightly. While it might
appear (feel) to you that your spikes are firmly in
they are still supported by the carper/pad. Sound
pressure measurements and auditioning indicate
only a poor improvement in fidelity if used in this way.


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

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

I've not placed this data on the web.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...phtExtract.mp3

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


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

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


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

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

:-)

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
says...
Here's a quick snap:

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

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





:-)

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Powell wrote:

For maximum effectiveness spikes should not be run
through any type of carpet interface (carpet/foam).
If you have high quality carpet, spikes just won't
penetrate the carpet/pad substrate. The tightly
woven jute backing and under pad is the problem.
The conical shape of spikes simply will not couple
to the sub-floor... and I mean tightly.

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

--
Eiron.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Keith G wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

:-)

Er, no. :)

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


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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

http://www.rachelgrimespiano.com/

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , Powell
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

"Work" means?...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've not placed this data on the web.

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Powell wrote:

snip


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

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

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

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

Rob

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Powell wrote:

snip


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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Since my background is in science and engineering,

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


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

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


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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , Powell
wrote:

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

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

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

Who is "we"?

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

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

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

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


Since my background is in science and engineering,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Powell wrote:

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

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


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

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

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


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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , Wally
wrote:
Powell wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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

Who is "we"?

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

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

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

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


Since my background is in science and engineering,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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


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

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

Geoff MacK

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Geoff Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

Who is "we"?

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

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

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

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


Since my background is in science and engineering,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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



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

Geoff MacK

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Geoff Mackenzie wrote:




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


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

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.


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

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

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

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

Rob

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

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

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

David.

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


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

David.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

(...)

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

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


--
Joe Kotroczo

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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




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


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

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.


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

Define your terms.



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

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



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


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

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

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

Geoff MacK

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article ,
Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

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


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

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

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

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

Zero qualifications? I don't think so.

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

Places differ.
--scott

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

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

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

Friggin' duh. g

/palm to forehead

---Jeff

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

Geoff MacK

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Arkansan Raider wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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