How many employed design engineers read /post

[hg]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

What is an audio engineer? A sound engineer? An acoustical engineer? Or something else?

Why have I and the chap from KEF been reduced to 0.0?

 

[andyjm]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

What is an audio engineer? A sound engineer? An acoustical engineer? Or something else?

Why have I and the chap from KEF been reduced to 0.0?

Ooops. Didn't spot you or the chap from KEF. Are we up to 2.5?

'Audio engineer' was a made up term on my part to cover engineers who design or otherwise engineer audio equipment. Guess that covers a multitude of sins.

 

[steve_1979]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

Why does being currently employed as an electrical/audio/acoustics engineer make a difference? You're either qualified with the necessary knowledge and experience or your not.

 

[SteveR750]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

Why does being currently employed as an electrical/audio/acoustics engineer make a difference? You're either qualified with the necessary knowledge and experience or your not.

Read the whole thread! Back in the naughty corner for you.

 

[drummerman]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

Ah, that was me.

It was meant jokingly but it is sometimes difficult to get that over in text (even with a smiley face)

My apologies dear fella

 

[ROTH AV]

I think you might be very surprised at the number of people from the audio industry who read these forums. These include company/brand owners, sales, marketing, PR, service, tech support, engineering, admin., finance, etc., etc.

Design (electronics, acoustic, cosmetic) engineers will read this and other forums, but like the vast majority of those working in the industry, they will not post here (or indeed on other forums), unless to provide direct help for a specific person with a specific problem/question. In the majority of cases, the reality is that these responses are made by 'trained' PR/Marketing people, as those that fulfil other functions within the business can get themselves into very tricky exchanges that can sometimes deteriorate into negativity, misunderstanding and a request for the car keys.

Even the rather obvious use of humour can be misinterpreted and 'spun' by those that have an interest in doing so. On forums such as these, there is still (at least from within our business and others that we know) a rule that the customer is always right. 100%. Every time. without fail.

This, for good or bad, is the way of the world.

Anyway, about those HDMI cables.......*music2*

 

[andyjm]

.....these responses are made by 'trained' PR/Marketing people.....

Is there such a thing?

 

[spiny norman]

.....these responses are made by 'trained' PR/Marketing people.....

Is there such a thing?

 

[steve_1979]

Read the whole thread! Back in the naughty corner for you.

Read the whole thread? I can't think of a worse punishment to endure than that.

 

[Jota180]

On a slightly lighter note, I notice that I was the only audio engineer who posted on this thread.

I was disqualified earlier on (unfairly in my opinion) for being retired, but I have got to believe that at least counts for something. Perhaps we could agree that I count for 1/2 an engineer in employement?

In which case, the answer to the OP's question would appear to be 0.5

It matters not a jot that you're retired. What we're (should be) talking about is the blind faith adherents and the scientific, evidence based adherents and any engineer worth his salt, retired or not, should be in the latter.

We're talking about different states of mind and their almost opposite approach to things.

 

[chebby]

It matters not a jot that you're retired.

Oh come on! Everyone knows that at 60 (or 65) people's brains turn to mush and their only remaining interests are what time buses arrive (always late of course), a nice piece of Battenburg cake with their tea and the gossip from the weekly whist drive!

 

[Jota180]

It matters not a jot that you're retired.

Oh come on! Everyone knows that at 60 (or 65) people's brains turn to mush and their only remaining interests are what time buses arrive (always late of course), a nice piece of Battenburg cake with their tea and the gossip from the weekly whist drive!

The old werther's sucking, grave dodging chancer that he is!

*joke

 

[James85]

It matters not a jot that you're retired. What we're (should be) talking about is the blind faith adherents and the scientific, evidence based adherents and any engineer worth his salt, retired or not, should be in the latter.

We're talking about different states of mind and their almost opposite approach to things.

I would suggest that there are probably three catagories of people rather than two:

1. blind faith adherents to what the magazines and marketers tell them

2. blind faith adherents to what science can tell them ("if we can't quantify it then it must be bunk.")

3. Those who know the limits of what science can tell us about something as subjective and little understood and our enjoyment of music, but still value it as a tool to help what can be quantified, and to disprove specific claims.

 

[SteveR750]

It matters not a jot that you're retired. What we're (should be) talking about is the blind faith adherents and the scientific, evidence based adherents and any engineer worth his salt, retired or not, should be in the latter.

We're talking about different states of mind and their almost opposite approach to things.

I would suggest that there are probably three catagories of people rather than two:

1. blind faith adherents to what the magazines and marketers tell them

2. blind faith adherents to what science can tell them ("if we can't quantify it then it must be bunk.")

3. Those who know the limits of what science can tell us about something as subjective and little understood and our enjoyment of music, but still value it as a tool to help what can be quantified, and to disprove specific claims.

More perhaps 1, 2 and everyone in between with an open mind and a balanced view of the universe. Music, thus far has escaped any rational explanation, and you might ask, why would we want to? Are some things just left as just are.

 

[Vladimir]

#3 = #1 in that list.

'Science can't explain music therefore electronics and psychoacoustics are a mystery' argument is very prevailing in #1. I'll have to dissapoint the gentlement in #1, everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it. Do you think musicians at Berkeley or Julliard just wank wires and blow trumpets directly wired to their 'hearts' and 'souls'? They learn, knowledge.

Nothing man-made is a mystery to man. Creation of the Universe is a mystery, not music and definitely not uninteligent domestic electromechanical appliances such as hi-fi.

 

[SteveR750]

#3 = #1 in that list.

'Science can't explain music therefore electronics and psychoacoustics are a mystery' argument is very prevailing in #1. I'll have to dissapoint the gentlement in #1, everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it. Do you think musicians at Berkeley or Julliard just wank wires and blow trumpets directly wired to their 'hearts' and 'souls'? They learn, knowledge.

Nothing man-made is a mystery to man. Creation of the Universe is a mystery, not music and definitely not uninteligent domestic electromechanical appliances such as hi-fi.

Vlad, I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that playing music is a learned skill? (it is). Or that the learned skill is already preordained? As in why is it that sounds that have a basic mathematical relationship should be so pleasurable? Why us rhythm so important? You can teach it so that it sounds great, but no one yet has explained why that is so, any more than we've really solved any if the questions as to why we're all here anyway...

 

[James85]

#3 = #1 in that list.

'Science can't explain music therefore electronics and psychoacoustics are a mystery' argument is very prevailing in #1. I'll have to dissapoint the gentlement in #1, everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it. Do you think musicians at Berkeley or Julliard just wank wires and blow trumpets directly wired to their 'hearts' and 'souls'? They learn, knowledge.

Nothing man-made is a mystery to man. Creation of the Universe is a mystery, not music and definitely not uninteligent domestic electromechanical appliances such as hi-fi.

I don't think so, anyone who tries to explain an emotive piece of music in scientific terms probably has some form of autism.

 

[SteveR750]

#3 = #1 in that list.

'Science can't explain music therefore electronics and psychoacoustics are a mystery' argument is very prevailing in #1. I'll have to dissapoint the gentlement in #1, everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it. Do you think musicians at Berkeley or Julliard just wank wires and blow trumpets directly wired to their 'hearts' and 'souls'? They learn, knowledge.

Nothing man-made is a mystery to man. Creation of the Universe is a mystery, not music and definitely not uninteligent domestic electromechanical appliances such as hi-fi.

I don't think so, anyone who tries to explain an emotive piece of music in scientific terms probably has some form of autism.

Agree James, I think vlad meant explanation in terms of the science of harmony, the precise mathematical relationship of notes in a scale for example.

 

[SteveR750]

Music is culturaly determined. Societal groups decide what is what is noise and what is music. This was the whole concept behind contemporary/avantgarde/experimental/post-modern classical, even Dada. The idea was to demonstrate that music can be anything if we want it to be. We write the rules, we write the music.

Absolutely, though doesn't explain why it's like that in the first place!

 

[Vladimir]

Music is culturaly determined. Societal groups decide what is noise and what is music. This was the whole concept behind contemporary/avantgarde/experimental/post-modern classical, even Dada. The idea was to demonstrate that music can be anything if we want it to be. We write the rules, we write the music.

 

[Vladimir]

Why humans create music?

 

[SteveR750]

Why humans create music?

That, and why is it that form? Why does adding thirds and fifths sound so right? The what is always the easy bit as you said, the hard bit is why.

 

[SteveR750]

Not sure I trust some of them anyway...

 

[Vladimir]

That, and why is it that form?

Music is a language function of our brain and serves as social group identification and communication. Other animals have music too. They group and quack, howl, humm, roar etc.

Why does adding thirds and fifths sound so right? The what is always the easy bit as you said, the hard bit is why.

Any tribal chanting in the Amazon with thirds and fifths?

 

[SteveR750]

That, and why is it that form?

Music is a language function of our brain and serves as social group identification and communication. Other animals have music too. They group and quack, howl, humm, roar etc.

Why does adding thirds and fifths sound so right? The what is always the easy bit as you said, the hard bit is why.

Any tribal chanting in the Amazon with thirds and fifths?

Indeed, many forms but why do we crave it? If we can't explain that, which we can no more than we can our existence; then the pragmatist will be somewhere between #1 and #2. Meanwhile, I'm off for some self delusional aural self stimulation.