Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: Fake EE Degree

  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5

    Fake EE Degree

    Has anyone considered the possibility that there are contributors on this forum who claim that they have EE's, when they really don't? I still find this one of the most humorous aspects to this forum, as if their EE's make them somehow an "authority".

    Whenever I hear the claims of someone having an EE degree, which are quickly followed by babbling of past technobabbled experiences (which are probably 100% fake as well), I immediately feel like skipping along to other cable discussions that don't contain these sort of claims.

    Just food for thought.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by bo130
    Has anyone considered the possibility that there are contributors on this forum who claim that they have EE's, when they really don't? I still find this one of the most humorous aspects to this forum, as if their EE's make them somehow an "authority".

    Whenever I hear the claims of someone having an EE degree, which are quickly followed by babbling of past technobabbled experiences (which are probably 100% fake as well), I immediately feel like skipping along to other cable discussions that don't contain these sort of claims.

    Just food for thought.

    Interesting supposition on your part. Anyone can claim anything on the net, do you disagree?
    One way to find out if they have a fake degree. Put them to the test. Ask them something about electricity that an EE would know that you also know to refute it if it is wrong.
    Isn't everything on the net or on the audio boards just babbling?
    How do we know who you are?
    Do we really care?
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583
    The only thing I would say is trust your ears over any advice given on this board, or any other for that matter!
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  4. #4
    Forum Regular Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    156
    The only thing I would say is never trust your ears! Your ears any other sense can easily be fooled, so put them to the test and arm yourself with knowledge.

    As for the fake EE thing, some of the regulars have been here for years, and I am fairly certain several of them are legitimate experts(though, I don't claim to be one in electronics, anyway) and would spot and call a fake pretty quickly. I guess that is more than one thing...shucks
    "You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by bo130
    Has anyone considered the possibility that there are contributors on this forum who claim that they have EE's, when they really don't? I still find this one of the most humorous aspects to this forum, as if their EE's make them somehow an "authority".

    Whenever I hear the claims of someone having an EE degree, which are quickly followed by babbling of past technobabbled experiences (which are probably 100% fake as well), I immediately feel like skipping along to other cable discussions that don't contain these sort of claims.

    Just food for thought.

    Because anyone can misrepresent himself on the Cable Forum, I never pay much attention to what a person says about his background of education and experience. I judge a post based on how well the member presents and backs up his argument. I don't have technical training in electronics, so I am not qualified to judge expertise in this field. When a poster seems to be demonstrating his technical knowledge, I just figure he probably is right or some other member would correct him. However, when someone claims or implies they know everything that can and will be known about cables, I begin to doubt his qualifications.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by bo130
    Has anyone considered the possibility that there are contributors on this forum who claim that they have EE's, when they really don't? I still find this one of the most humorous aspects to this forum, as if their EE's make them somehow an "authority".

    Whenever I hear the claims of someone having an EE degree, which are quickly followed by babbling of past technobabbled experiences (which are probably 100% fake as well), I immediately feel like skipping along to other cable discussions that don't contain these sort of claims.

    Just food for thought.
    Beyond the lying, it is unethical to claim a profession falsely. If the person is fluent in the field they might fool everyone, including others in the field. On the other hand, incompetence doesn't necessarily mean that one does not work as a professional. Some professionals are so incompetent that it is hard to believe that they ever managed to get a degree. A degree insures neither competence nor honesty.

    As a result it is probably best just to take each persons points and posts on their own merits. Give claims of experience and/or education all the weight they merit. (I'd suggest something lighter than air.)

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by bo130
    Has anyone considered the possibility that there are contributors on this forum who claim that they have EE's, when they really don't? I still find this one of the most humorous aspects to this forum, as if their EE's make them somehow an "authority".
    I find it strange that on your second post on this site you are already challenging people who have posted here far longer and made far more contributions to other peoples' real knowledge than you probably ever will.

    I generally avoid mentioning my background, especially my educational background because I think that the arguements should stand on their own merits and that people who read them should make their decisions of whether or not to believe them based on their logic and their own experience.

    That having been said, I will say that I do NOT have an EE degree. I personally have a BE (Bachelor's of Engineering) degree which I received from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken New Jersey in 1969. I majored in Electrical Engineering. I graduated 108 in a class of about 240 with a GPA of 2.85. Stevens offered only two undergraduate degrees at that time, Bachelor of Engineering and Bachelor of Science. They had what they called a "Unified Curriculum" which meant slightly fewer courses in the student's major discipline and slightly more in other engineering disciplines. The philosophy of this was that the education would be less likely to become obsolete and be of greater use over the lifetime of the student. This is a fine distinction but nonetheless I feel it should be stated.

    Engineering grads really begin to pay their dues and become full fledged engineers after they leave school and start accumulating real world experience in the working world where they integrate their theoretical knowledge of the classroom with the practical knowledge of real life. It takes at least five years for most engineering students to become full fledged engineers. Some never make it and I've known many who even had PE licenses who had little or no useful engineering knowledge relying on other people to do their work for them. Others go into other fields right out of college including law school, medicine, business, or get jobs in sales or management and never become true engineers.

    Engineering and scientific educations are different from say a Bachelor of Arts education. While BA students read history, english literature, sociology and then parrot back what they read to the professor in exams, usually in the form he wants, get their credits, and eventually their degrees, Engineers read development of mathematical models of physical situations in physics, chemistry, material science, electrical and mechanical studies and use them to solve problems. And while they inevitably forget much of what they knew in college, the way of thinking about problem solving stays with them for life so that when they need to, they can teach themselves whatever is new that they have to learn. In other words, BA students are taught what to think, engineers are taught HOW to think.

    Do frauds, shills, wanabees and other fakers come here to post? Yes. I exposed one would be engineer here who misrepresented himself about two years ago. Anybody remember what happened to WarrenWarren? He claimed to be a candidate for a PHD in rf engineering until I pointed out in the course of one thread that he had made an error saying that the mathematical model of twisted pair wire was the same as coax. He then admitted he was in fact a technician, blabbered on about his wonderful job, his family, wrote a long thread on flipping coins and disappeared.

    I do not know if John Risch is a degreed engineer. There are many troubling and puzzling things he says and does which make me wonder. I'm not going into them now but usually one engineer has a nose to sniff out another of his own kind. For instance, I have no doubt that John Neutron was trained as an electrical engineer or in some closely allied field such as physics. Engineers inevitably become skeptics early on in their careers after being taken in a few times by false advertising and misleading claims when their supervisors remind them that they are responsible for the wise use of other peoples' money. After that, they instinctively demand scientific proof of claims by independent testers whose results can be verified and always hold all conclusions as tentative. That's one big difference between engineering and religion. That's what makes me a maysayer and not a naysayer.

    OK BO130 you got your answer. I hope you are satisfied.
    Last edited by skeptic; 01-22-2004 at 06:36 AM.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular Bill L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    78
    What a system sounds like is all that matters. Anyone who quotes physics to pass judgement on you or your system IMO can't accept the truth (No-one knows everything about anything).

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Some people have the knowledge and experience to see through other peoples' deceit. There is a lot of deception in this business because there is a lot of money to be made in it. It is very easy to be fooled. If you don't think so, you are even more vulnerable than you know.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular Bill L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    78
    I agree wholeheartedly. Where we differ is in our definition of knowledge and experience. IMO asking someone to evaluate a stereo without using their ears is ludicrous, yet it happens here daily. Why should we blindly accept anyone's opinion when we can see (hear) for ourselves, regardless of what that opinion is based on? It is much more likely that the extremely vocal naysaying few have flawed systems that do not allow the effect of cables to be heard, than it is that the entire audiophile community is self hypnotized into a placebo epidemic. $.02

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188

    I think you missed my point

    It was obvious why the original poster bo130 said what he did. I answered him in a straightforward way as if his posting was a simple direct statement taken a face value but the real purpose of his posting seemed to me was to discredit people who brought any real knowledge to this board and who don't agree that upmarket cables make an audible improvement in audio systems. In other words, he is likely a shill for someone.

    Those of us who have been around in this industry whether as pros or as hobbyists for any time know that there are an infinite number of clever ways to trick people into believing something about some piece or kind of equipment or other. How do we know? We've been tricked many times ourselves. My favorite was the Little David, a speaker marketed by Phillips in the 1970s. And a clever trick it was too. It was at a trade show. Two monster speakers were set up in a large room. They were playing jazz. Loud. Big sound just like the sound you'd expect from a gigantic multiway horn system. Dozens of people were crowded in listening to them. When the presenter started to talk about Phillip's new offering, at one point he turned on the lights inside the enclosures. It revealed to everyone's astonishment including mine that the enclosures were nothing more than empty frames with cloth around them. The actual speakers were very small, tiramplified bookshelf speakers. I have a friend who owns the original demos in his collection. This is just one example. There are countless others, most of them with far more malevolent intent. Even scientists can make honest mistakes as evidenced by the demo some Japanese experimenters published last year that was cited on this board. They demonstrated what they knew to be impossible was true, that you could hear harmonics above 20khz. When they realized and corrected their error (a tweeter covering both the audible and ultrasonic range producing harmonic distortion in the audible range when excited in the ultrasonic range) they got the right answer. The point is that to make a credible claim and convince professionals that they are valid, you MUST publish you complete experimental method and hold it up to scrutiny of other people of equal skill so that they can review it and shoot it down if possible. The audiophile cable industry didn't do this. Having produced products much more expensive than those they replaced, it was incumbent ON THEM, to prove their merit, not on the industry to prove they had none. For the longest while it seemed obvious that they didn't because they apparantly couldn't. But now it is also obvious from their commercial success that they don't have to. Audiophiles are willing to buy them and accept their worth often sight unseen and unheard. But even if they do prove that they work differently then their more mundane competitors, that is not enough to satisfy engineers who need to know how to know what they will do in advance (not as tinkering experimenters with unlimited time and money to try anything) and to know that what they have to offer is unique and cost effective. This is why engineers have a built in advantage over non engineers in gaging the validity of the increasingly brazen claims the people who make and sell this stuff publish.

    This board offers neophite audiophiles the opportunity to question not only which cables to buy but the validity of the notion that they have to buy anything out of the ordinary at all. Other sites such as Cable Asylum take it for granted that upmarket cables are a necessary part of a fine home sound system and do not permit discussion of one important type of test, the Double Blind ABX test (DBT) which is a method scientists have of eliminating prejudice when trying to compare different equipment.

    It is not the people who are skeptical like me who engage in technobabble about audio cables, it is the people who make and sell them, trying to impress and confuse their prospective customers intimidating or scaring them into believing that they won't get all of the performance they paid for in their other equipment if they don't buy these products. It is sad when someone with $500 to $1000 trying to put together his first home HT system or stereo system has been persuaded to shell out another few hundred for cables. Those people who are convinced that they must have these products will NOT be persuaded by objective facts that they might be wrong. But they will not go unchallenged if they bring their unsupported claims here either. Meanwhile, after reading PC Tower's notes from the recent CES show, it is clear that whether anyone in the industry believes in them or not, you are not going to successfully market high end audio equipment without impressive looking after market cables in their demo installation because that is what audiophiles expect to see.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185

    Well said Skeptic!

    Thanks for such a thoughtful & well worded response. I am always surprised at how many people there are, regardless of their education, who lack the basic skills of skeptical thinking. Look at how many on this forum misunderstand Mytrycraft's basic (some would say only) point. He'll believe whatever you claim, but first you have to convince him with some evidence.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    79
    Bill, do you really believe that if I disagree with you on something like wire-sonics or amplifier-signatures that you can conclude that I'm a stupid jerk with either crummy gear or defective hearing? Don't you think you might just be jumping to an unsupportable conclusion? It seems that you may be letting your imagination rule your thinking. NOBODY has EVER told anyone to select audio gear without listening to it. OK, that's probably an overstatement, but only a complete idiot would give that kind of advice, and complete idiots are (thankfully) rare. You seem to imagine that people are saying that constantly on this forum so I challenge you to provide some links to support your claim. I think if you look for such advice you'll actually find that it is something that you have only imagined. If I'm wrong about that we'll just blame it on my not reading enough posts.

    I totally agree that most if not all disagreements are the result of the way we define things and our experiences, but jumping to the kind of conclusions you're jumping to here is difficult to justify. For what it's worth, there are people here who have outstanding audio systems, and not all of them are going to agree with you on every issue. If you lump them all together in a group you label as "naysayers" you make a major error. If you think there is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with you then you need to consider the implications of the thinking.

    I see three camps. One says, "I know what I hear." The other says, "No you don't." The third group questions the cause of what is heard. It is easy to confuse the latter with either of the other two. When we do so we probably miss something worth knowing, but not everyone cares or needs to know (anything). If you like what you hear, and are comfortable with that level of assessment, then why worry about what others think or say? Just ignore it.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    In other words, he is likely a shill for someone.
    That is an ASTRONOMICAL leap of faith for one who considers himself a skeptic.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by bturk667
    The only thing I would say is trust your ears over any advice given on this board, or any other for that matter!
    Big mistake based on what we know about human gullibility and how easy it is to confuse senses.
    mtrycrafts

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Interesting you are using the same picture, or it seems to be, under you name as a poster at DIY from Australia
    mtrycrafts

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I do not know if John Risch is a degreed engineer. There are many troubling and puzzling things he says and does which make me wonder.
    He was presented as having an EE at the 1998 AES conference at his presentation of one of his papers. I sat through it. Boring.
    mtrycrafts

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    What a system sounds like is all that matters.

    Well, this can be debated as well. How a system sounds to you is also determined by your biases. Dr Floyd Toole has demonstrated this many times.


    Anyone who quotes physics to pass judgement on you or your system IMO can't accept the truth (No-one knows everything about anything).

    What truths would that be? Who said one needs to know everythign aby anything?
    One only has to look around you.
    mtrycrafts

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill L
    It is much more likely that the extremely vocal naysaying few have flawed systems that do not allow the effect of cables to be heard, than it is that the entire audiophile community is self hypnotized into a placebo epidemic. $.02
    When you or anyone for that matter can demonstarte this audible differences, then I could agree with you about flawed systems. Or, ones hearing capability. But, that is not what the debate is about. It is about the claimants ability to demonstrate the accuracy of the claims made.
    mtrycrafts

  20. #20
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Interesting you are using the same picture, or it seems to be, under you name as a poster at DIY from Australia
    Is that the DIY board here, or on another site? If its another site, he is an interloper, but one with good taste!

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    This was only his second posting at this web site and he has already questioned the credentials of people who post here who claim or appear to be engineers. Why would he do that? If the answer isn't obvious to you, ask it again and again until you get the right answer. Do not stop if you are starting to get a headache. It may hurt but it will be worth it when the truth finally dawns on you.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    Thanks for such a thoughtful & well worded response. I am always surprised at how many people there are, regardless of their education, who lack the basic skills of skeptical thinking. Look at how many on this forum misunderstand Mytrycraft's basic (some would say only) point. He'll believe whatever you claim, but first you have to convince him with some evidence.
    Convince him with some evidence? How would you do that here? If I say I got a positive result from a blinded test of a cable at home, I doubt anyone would accept that as proof of a difference. Naysayers might suspect I made it up or did something wrong.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Big mistake based on what we know about human gullibility and how easy it is to confuse senses.
    You overlook some of the most important factors. "Big mistake."

    People have to have some basis for any decision. Are you actually advising the purchase of audio equipment without listening to it first. If so all I can say is that it is the most idiotic idea every proposed on this or any other audio forum.

    Exactly WHAT do you expect people to do, Mtry? Is everyone supposed to get an EE degree before they purchase audio equipment? Your position is totally unsupportable, in spite of the fallibility of our senses. We all, including you, have to make decisions based on the best information we have available. When it comes to audio, all most people have is their ears. I didn't realize that you were the extremist who thinks a pig in a poke is better than using the best information we have available. I'm shocked!

    Me thinks perhaps your words here don't actually reflect your thinking. If they do, then you might want to consider trying to find another hobby.

    What makes you think your advice is going to lead to greater end-user satisfaction than anyone else's advice? The whole idea of buying audio gear based on the advice of someone else is totally misguided. Hell man, if we do that, we'll all be buying exotic cables, becuae the reviewers love them so much. Big mistake!

  24. #24
    Forum Regular Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    What a system sounds like is all that matters.

    Well, this can be debated as well. How a system sounds to you is also determined by your biases. Dr Floyd Toole has demonstrated this many times.
    If you're speaking of Toole's work that shows that most people prefer low distortion and linear frequency response I think you are making too much out of it. He has never shown that everybody has the same preferences because that just can't be shown. It isn't true.

    Some find close micing objectionable. Dr. Bose was one such person, and there are still people who love the diffuse and directionless quality of his direct-reflecting 901 loudspeakers. There are at least as many who think them unlistenable, and Dr. Toole's work supports that position. This does not in any way limit the pleasure 901 owners have received and will continue to receive from their loudspeakers. Toole's work doesn't show what you imply that it shows in your statements here. It does verify something you and I have discussed before, that being that MOST prefer low distortion and linear response (once they have a chance to actually hear such things), but that doesn't preclude alternate preferences. Thanking that way is like thinking that any music you don't personally enjoy is just trash. It's fuzzy thinking and rather self-centered. Don't you agree?

  25. #25
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    If I say I got a positive result from a blinded test of a cable at home, I doubt anyone would accept that as proof of a difference. Naysayers might suspect I made it up or did something wrong.
    If you did such a test, provided everyone a full description of your methods, and showed all the results, naysayers might falsely accuse you of making it up, but genuine skeptics would eagerly read it. They might come back with a lot of questions, and they might not agree with your conclusions, but I think you would be surprised at how skeptics can be convinced by a well-done experiment or demonstration. Skeptics really mean it when they say "Show me".

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •