Fake EE Degree

[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.

[mtrycraft]

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?

[bturk667]

The only thing I would say is trust your ears over any advice given on this board, or any other for that matter!

[mtrycraft]

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.

[Chuck]

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!

[Rockwell]

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!

I think what he is saying is that some things are worth listening to and some aren't. For the things that aren't, like wires that are unlikely to change the sound, the buyer may want to use more rigorous testing or avoid auditioning them all together. Of course, it is up to the buyer to decide what is worth listening to, but I think that most people assume or are told that wires will make their system better. I would take the advice of an engineer over some salesman or wire evangelist on what is likely to improve sound.

What cemented my own conclusons about the flawed nature of wire sonics are the reviews and comparisons of digital cables, cables which cannot impart any signature, but people can still imagine them.

[skeptic]

I think what he is saying is that some things are worth listening to and some aren't. For the things that aren't, like wires that are unlikely to change the sound, the buyer may want to use more rigorous testing or avoid auditioning them all together.

Among those few I've encountered who can be taken seriously about the benefit of certain wires, they admit that the improvements are at best subtle. But how many times do you hear people say this wire blew away all of the others or that there was a drastic improvement. Even Jon Risch tells you that you require what he conceives as a high resolution sound system to hear the benefits of these wires yet people whose entire sound systems cost merely a few thousand dollars are spending hundreds on these wires. How did they get the idea that they were worth it? When you read the scientific measurements and the discussion gets down to a few tenths of a decibel at 20khz, you are in a zone well beyond the threshold of what human beings can hear and distinguish. People who have an absolutist mentality with some idealized conception of what audio equipment is about are not in the real world. They think that somehow, if every component achieved its theoretical optimum, there would be perfection in sound reproduction. This ignores the truth which is that the very concept or paradyme is badly flawed and that there is a point of diminishing returns and a point of no returns and any so called improvements are an illusion.

[Chuck]

I think what he is saying is that some things are worth listening to and some aren't. For the things that aren't, like wires that are unlikely to change the sound, the buyer may want to use more rigorous testing or avoid auditioning them all together. Of course, it is up to the buyer to decide what is worth listening to, but I think that most people assume or are told that wires will make their system better. I would take the advice of an engineer over some salesman or wire evangelist on what is likely to improve sound.

What cemented my own conclusons about the flawed nature of wire sonics are the reviews and comparisons of digital cables, cables which cannot impart any signature, but people can still imagine them.

Actually, he has now implied that I'm stupid because I don't believe that everyone who reports hearing differences in wires is a shill. The man is knowledgeable, but his perceptions of the motives of others is very skewed. Don't you agree? Cable consumers have to outnumber the shills, and guys who buy cables do so because they believe something they've seen in an ad or review. They believe they know what they're talking about, and will show up on audio forums to defend their decisions. On that basis it is totally irrational to believe that one can know after two posts that someone else is a shill. Do YOU think that the guys who post about their subjective experiences are shills, or do you agree with me on this matter. The issue is not the good points Skeptic made, but rather his jumping to an unsupportable conclusions about those who have posted here. That would include the comments he's made about me. Do YOU think I'm stupid because I don't think that every report of "cable sonics" comes from a shill? That is clearly what Skeptic thinks, just read his posts and see how stubborn he is about it, and how rude he has been with me. Is this your buddy? Can you make him listen to reason? I could sure use some help.

I appreciate your comments, but it does seem that you missed the point. Skeptic didn't, but stands by his half-baked conclusions. Surely he stands alone.

Thanks,

Chuck

[Chuck]

I think what he is saying is that some things are worth listening to and some aren't. For the things that aren't, like wires that are unlikely to change the sound, the buyer may want to use more rigorous testing or avoid auditioning them all together. Of course, it is up to the buyer to decide what is worth listening to, but I think that most people assume or are told that wires will make their system better. I would take the advice of an engineer over some salesman or wire evangelist on what is likely to improve sound.

What cemented my own conclusons about the flawed nature of wire sonics are the reviews and comparisons of digital cables, cables which cannot impart any signature, but people can still imagine them.

Whoops! MAJOR WHOOPS! I think I responded to this post last night, thinking that you were talking about someone else (not Mtrycraft). My mistake. Guess I'm still adjusting to the new forum format. I'm not going to revisit that part of this thread because the behavior there is objectionable, so I'm just going to post this correction in response to outer post (here). Sorry for the confusion.

Skeptic is the one calling people names and misrepresenting things because he's hung-up on the shill think. The real reason he attacked Bo is because Bo struck a nerve. Before the forum was remodeled Skeptic sometimes claimed that he was an EE in his efforts to intimidate others. Mtrycraft and Jneutron can both verify this fact (the archives have apparently been deleted). He saw Bo's post as an attack because he's guilty of doing what Bo was asking about. When I made the mistake of pointing out that it was illogical to assume that Bo was a shill he attacked me for the same reason. He is probably ashamed of what he's done in the past and is likely afraid that everyone will find out. Unfortunately he doesn't realize that senseless attacks based on thin-air only discredit the attacker. Anyway, sorry I made an error and thought you were talking about Skeptic.

Mtry, sorry buddy, didn't mean that you'd been acting like Skeptic. Sometimes he's as reasonable as you, but at others he's something else. I've added him to my ignore list, and don't intend to even visit the portion of the thread where he's behaving so foolishly. Hopefully you've responded to my posts there. (Thanks.)

My bad guys. I'll try to be more careful in the future (but Murphy is always out to get me, so please don’t expect perfection).

See ya,

Chuck

[mtrycraft]

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!

Let's examine what was posted, what I responded to with what.

This is whatwas posted:

The only thing I would say is trust your ears over any advice given on this board, or any other for that matter!

He wants you to disregard everything and trust your ears completely.

You agree with this completely?

I made a comment based on knowledge gained over many years, how gullible one can be, biased, etc to fully trust what one hears and not rely on other inputs and others knowledge on the subject.

Big mistake based on what we know about human gullibility and how easy it is to confuse senses.

Is this not accurate? Senses cannot be fooled? We are not gullible?

I said nothing about not listening, you disagree?

I didn't get into what else one should know or do to make better choices, decisions.
One should know a bit more than just to listen and go off blindly on that perception.

[Rockwell]

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

[okiemax]

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.

[Chuck]

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.)

[skeptic]

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.

[mtrycraft]

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.

[bo130]

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..

Yes, but then you make the assumption that, only on my second post, that I am some no-nothing newbie who wouldn't know the difference between a speaker an a tin-can.

My post was not about me. I was simply commenting on the people who have posted within this forum as supposed "authorities" because of their claims that they possess degrees that they do not have. Maybe perhaps you can drag the personal attacks out of what was a genuine question. However, your lengthy reply and the content within makes me come to the conclusion that my posting hit far too close to home for you to deal with. But thanks for the reply nonetheless.

[SlumpBuster]

Dude, isn't your come back like three years too late?

[GMichael]

Yes, but then you make the assumption that, only on my second post, that I am some no-nothing newbie who wouldn't know the difference between a speaker an a tin-can.

My post was not about me. I was simply commenting on the people who have posted within this forum as supposed "authorities" because of their claims that they possess degrees that they do not have. Maybe perhaps you can drag the personal attacks out of what was a genuine question. However, your lengthy reply and the content within makes me come to the conclusion that my posting hit far too close to home for you to deal with. But thanks for the reply nonetheless.

Wow, you've been here for 3 years longer than I have. I must have been doing some drinking because I just don't recall you at all.
Well? Aren't you going to welcome me to AR?

[Bill L]

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).

[skeptic]

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.

[Bill L]

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

[skeptic]

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.

[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.

[Chuck]

In other words, he is likely a shill for someone.

That is an ASTRONOMICAL leap of faith for one who considers himself a skeptic.

[Bill L]

I didn't miss your point - it's been repeated here ad nauseum. "If I can't here it then nobody can" and "Prove it, prove it, prove it or you have a placebo problem". There's your unsupported claim. Placebo effect exists and can influence people - but not to the extent that is suggested here, as a blanket win-all-arguments finality that supposes everyone who believes in cable sonics is afflicted. It's a witch hunt.