Well then you agree with my point of view that research should serve a practical end. Because the guy I was replying to with the initial comment said that engineers aren't working on audio equipment anymore, which is a practical area, and are instead focusing on other outlandish stuff. So don't pick and choose specific parts of comments to focus on because then going down the wrong path and making a fool of yourself by missing the point.
Not agreeing with you, not at all. I enjoy making a fool of myself, when it comes to discussions; I get to grow from learning.
Your point of view believes that research must serve a practical end. Whose practical end? Yours? There aren't many researches out there that don't serve some purpose, and one of those being our understanding of the world and advancement of knowledge. While there might be some anti-science researches that go on (like homeopathy and junk as such), most researches, even those in humanities, art, history and non-scientific topics, serve many purposes. I'd also argue that building audio equipment at this level of precision serves no practical end; it no longer enhances communications; in fact, I'd argue that old telephone lines are already enough for practical purposes. High-end audio doesn't save lives or involve in any survival mechanism. So, why bother?
Sure, not many EEs end up doing audio; and most are working in areas that are fulfilling market needs (that's why they are being paid). I don't know of any EEs whom are working in researches in "outlandish" areas; could you enlighten me with some examples?