Has civility on ASR declined recently?

[tmtomh]

2c I feel that with the influx of so much new people the majority of forum members does not actually understand what the forum stands for ?

I was so relieved when I found this fora , where I could get away from the nonsense of regular audiophile forums and actually chat with senior members here that actually knows how the sausage is made thankyou all of you.

But lately I feel that the forum is overruned by “them” ? Heck some even create accounts to rant when they feel provoked by something discussed here.

Thought provoking idea . There was a great tread that I thought should be a sticky about “ why do people think DAC’s have a sound signature “ . Thinking about it.

I wonder what a poll about that very question would yield ? “Do you think that competently designed DAC’s have a sound signature “ . ( in current climate here I would not dare ).

Then we would know if we are at a Astronomy conference sieged by astrology believers ?

My personal pet hypothesis is that some kind of tragedy befell our hobby in late 70’s to early 80’s there was a paradigm shift for the worse . When all this cable nonsense and subjective sighted reviews started to appear and all kinds of cargo cult beliefs condensed out of the aether. This coincides with the thing that at the same time electronics used in audio if reasonably well made started to be transparent to humans listeners . So then the bias become the base for our hobby?

I was swept away by the nonsense for a long time and have wasted time and money ( I was a believer ).

I was pleasantly surprised when I found this forum and with it a return to some rational discourse in hifi

I think you are right that something did indeed change, probably in the early to mid-1980s. I would be very curious to know what caused the change.

The only things I have ever been able to come up with as possible factors were that the early to mid-1980s saw two changes in the audio industry:

1. The end of the Receiver Wars - the end of the line for the beefy, super-robust Japanese amps and receivers (and the Marantz gear that, along with McIntosh, had inspired them) that dominated the 1970s, and their replacement with cheaper, lower-power models marketed more on new touch-controls and digital readouts than on specs, performance, and build quality.

2. The advent of the CD and with it the beginning of the "digital sounds bad" narrative among some audiophile reviewers who found fault with the sound quality of some of the early CD players.

I've often wondered if these twin developments helped create - or at least widen - a rift between the mass market and the boutique high-end market. I'm sure there was super-expensive high-end stuff before the 1980s, but it seems to me that in the 1960s and '70s there was more of a continuum, where the mass-market manufacturers were also making truly impressive, high-end, ultra-engineered gear as well.

Finally, I also wonder if rising income and wealth inequality - which in the U.S. at least began in the mid-1970s and really took off in the 1980s - also contributed to the split of the hi-fi market into a cheaper mass market and an ever more expensive and esoteric high end.

My point with regard to the ASR ethos is that both ends of this more polarized market had reasons - albeit different reasons - for retreating from specs and measurements. (The lower end because they were not interested in highlighting the decline in quality, and the high end because the prices and caché dictated something more/other than tech-oriented marketing.)

 

[pkane]

I think you are right that something did indeed change, probably in the early to mid-1980s. I would be very curious to know what caused the change.

I think the two factors that conspired to create the modern "subjective audiophile" were

1. The ease with which our minds can be fooled into hearing what we want to hear, and
2. The audio reproduction chain achieving a level of transparency in the 80's where the noise and the distortions became low enough to allow for these uncontrolled flights of fancy.

The audio press and the market were more than willing to oblige, resulting in a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling expectations detached from reality and reinforced by a growing number of practitioners.

 

[Newman]

something did indeed change, probably in the early to mid-1980s. I would be very curious to know what caused the change.

I think it was that the Japanese technical electronics corporations had mastered the art of putting out high-power low distortion amplifiers at reasonable prices, and which lasted decades with no adjustments, along with very highly engineered direct drive turntables with high specification motors and again, high engineering precision and design attributes throughout.

And the British and American artisans, who used to make the hifi gear that was most sought after, simply couldn’t compete with this. There was no way that they could make an amplifier equal or better than what the Japanese were doing, nor a turntable, when their primary skills were woodworking, glueing belts together, and mounting wooden trays on springs.

So, in response to this, a pattern started to emerge where, whenever the old school released a new product, the home nation’s audio journalists (and indeed perhaps the English speaking audio journalist group in unison) would enthuse endlessly over it, and their primary advantage that they could talk about was that it sounds simply better. Much better. And we saw the myth emerge about the Japanese amplifiers being sterile and lifeless, and the Japanese turntables similarly, and that the British and American products get your foot tapping with their pace, rhythm and timing, which seem to be miraculously totally absent from a well engineered product. After all, this was war.

The likely fact that the journalists were actually writing what they believed, because they actually heard such differences but didn’t know they were listening through their bias, made it somewhat innocent, and not deliberately mischievous.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think the two factors that conspired to create the modern "subjective audiophile" were

1. The ease with which our minds can be fooled into hearing what we want to hear, and
2. The audio reproduction chain achieving a level of transparency in the 80's where the noise and the distortions became low enough to allow for these uncontrolled flights of fancy.

The audio press and the market were more than willing to oblige, resulting in a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling expectations detached from reality and reinforced by a growing number of practitioners.

I agree with this. It was the CD which finally put the whole system over the edge to general transparency.

 

[JJB70]

Once you accept that audio electronics just work and you can buy amplifiers, disc spinners etc for peanuts which are audibly transparent or as near as makes no difference then what is the point of hi-fi and all the hangers on like magazines? Once you accept that none of that analogue turntable tweakery is necessary anymore where does that leave a whole cottage industry of tweakery suppliers? Retailers? The advances made by Japanese manufacturers in the 70's and 80's were an existential threat to too many, so the response was to retreat into the sort of mystique that persuades people to believe in magic rocks, cables, expensive equipment racks, cable lifters etc. The industry shrunk as audio gear was commoditised and the fringe element withdrew into very high margin micro niches in which sales were trivial but profits high on what was sold. In this case I think the mainstream got it right. The gear doesn't matter and if it's about enjoying music rather than about gear than wireless speakers and headphones are excellent. The item that does amaze me is the DAC, probably no other part of the audio chain has been commoditised quite as much as the DAC. It is a technology co which achieved technological maturity and audible transparency decades ago yet now there's a whole mystique around DACs and some seem to think it a novel technology which is advancing in leaps and bounds.

 

[Deleted member 23424]

I think you are right that something did indeed change, probably in the early to mid-1980s. I would be very curious to know what caused the change.

The only things I have ever been able to come up with as possible factors were that the early to mid-1980s saw two changes in the audio industry:

1. The end of the Receiver Wars - the end of the line for the beefy, super-robust Japanese amps and receivers (and the Marantz gear that, along with McIntosh, had inspired them) that dominated the 1970s, and their replacement with cheaper, lower-power models marketed more on new touch-controls and digital readouts than on specs, performance, and build quality.

2. The advent of the CD and with it the beginning of the "digital sounds bad" narrative among some audiophile reviewers who found fault with the sound quality of some of the early CD players.

I've often wondered if these twin developments helped create - or at least widen - a rift between the mass market and the boutique high-end market. I'm sure there was super-expensive high-end stuff before the 1980s, but it seems to me that in the 1960s and '70s there was more of a continuum, where the mass-market manufacturers were also making truly impressive, high-end, ultra-engineered gear as well.

Finally, I also wonder if rising income and wealth inequality - which in the U.S. at least began in the mid-1970s and really took off in the 1980s - also contributed to the split of the hi-fi market into a cheaper mass market and an ever more expensive and esoteric high end.

My point with regard to the ASR ethos is that both ends of this more polarized market had reasons - albeit different reasons - for retreating from specs and measurements. (The lower end because they were not interested in highlighting the decline in quality, and the high end because the prices and caché dictated something more/other than tech-oriented marketing.)

This point in time also coincided with the Thatcher/Reagan led nosedive into free market capitalism and the 'market's will' to serve profit and margin over and above performance and longevity in products.

Prior to that point most big unit box shifters were doing battle over performance data and building actual tanks, many of which are still prized by many today.

Not long after they were trying to outdo each other in the profit margin stakes, ramming the cheapest possible tech into shiny plastic boxes, and projects like Optonica quickly disappeared.

 

[JJB70]

This point in time also coincided with the Thatcher/Reagan led nosedive into free market capitalism and the 'market's will' to serve profit and margin over and above performance and longevity in products.

Prior to that point most big unit box shifters were doing battle over performance data and building actual tanks, many of which are still prized by many today.

Not long after they were trying to outdo each other in the profit margin stakes, ramming the cheapest possible tech into shiny plastic boxes, and projects like Optonica quickly disappeared.

Not sure I agree with that. In the 1980's through to the mid 90's-ish the Japanese outfits (Sony, Pioneer, Marantz, Denon, Sansui, Kenwood, Sansui, Accuphase, Nakamichi etc) reached a level of engineering and build quality we may never see again in audio. Their statement pieces were expensive for sure but built to a standard you just don't see today. And their regular, more prosaic offerings were generally impeccably engineered. It was a time when those companies were engineering led and very innovative. However it was the period when things went silly in the world of US and European boutique audio and in the hi-fi press.

 

[dasdoing]

Some people here want to "win" so bad. I don't understand how that is usefull for the person. Does the person go to the mirror and say "yessss"?
If you want competition practice a sport

 

[dasdoing]

I also have the impression that some of the more emotive discussions are inflamed by like-hunting.

 

[sarumbear]

Re: Scientist & Engineers.

What is the difference, how does their education differ?

When I was at university, back in the early 70s, in the UK only graduate degrees on Art and Science, B.A., M.A. and B.Sc., M.Sc. were given. There were however polytechnics which offered two year courses and graduated engineers (along with electricians and plumbers, etc.) A person with a B.Sc. could work as an engineer and often had a higher rank and pay than the engineer from the polytechnic. During the 80s polytechnics merged to universities or they became a university and people graduated with those arts or sciences degrees. At the turn of the century universities started courses for degrees specifically in engineering like B.Eng. and M.Eng.

My acoustics degree is an M.A. That is because it was part of the architecture department which gave degrees in Arts. My B.Sc. and M.A degrees are from Imperial College. It is called a college but in fact it is a global top ranking university.

Meanwhile, we used to call anyone with a degree who worked at an R&D facility or do R&D at a university a scientist. However, as engineering definition and courses have changed as I explained above, who knows what has changed in their world.

Titles, eh?

 

[ahofer]

I wonder, are Americans aware that stuff like this only happens in the States? Most other countries have laws that don't allow these kinds of practices.

I’ve found that a double-edged sword. I did a bunch of work for a European investor who bought some luxury brands in France. He wasn’t able to do anything to rationalize the cost structure because of those laws, and the companies ultimately folded. So instead of targeted layoffs, everyone lost their job. Meanwhile, his Canadian and US investments restructured and survived. Labor markets need some flexibility.

 

[tmtomh]

I think it was that the Japanese technical electronics corporations had mastered the art of putting out high-power low distortion amplifiers at reasonable prices, and which lasted decades with no adjustments, along with very highly engineered direct drive turntables with high specification motors and again, high engineering precision and design attributes throughout.

And the British and American artisans, who used to make the hifi gear that was most sought after, simply couldn’t compete with this. There was no way that they could make an amplifier equal or better than what the Japanese were doing, nor a turntable, when their primary skills were woodworking, glueing belts together, and mounting wooden trays on springs.

So, in response to this, a pattern started to emerge where, whenever the old school released a new product, the home nation’s audio journalists (and indeed perhaps the English speaking audio journalist group in unison) would enthuse endlessly over it, and their primary advantage that they could talk about was that it sounds simply better. Much better. And we saw the myth emerge about the Japanese amplifiers being sterile and lifeless, and the Japanese turntables similarly, and that the British and American products get your foot tapping with their pace, rhythm and timing, which seem to be miraculously totally absent from a well engineered product. After all, this was war.

The likely fact that the journalists were actually writing what they believed, because they actually heard such differences but didn’t know they were listening through their bias, made it somewhat innocent, and not deliberately mischievous.

IMHO that's a persuasive explanation. Thanks!

 

[Thunder22]

 

[litemotiv]

So instead of targeted layoffs, everyone lost their job. Meanwhile, his Canadian and US investments restructured and survived.

Companies folding are complex situations with many different factors involved, perhaps too many to casually use anecdotally in this way.

I'm in Western Europe and i don't think i ever heard of a company folding here because the employees cost too much and the company wasn't able to fire anyone. That would be very unreasonable towards companies ofcourse, and it also wouldn't benefit the employees. So no, that's not how the law works here.

European laws don't differ so much from Canadian laws, the latter being only slightly more lenient in favor of the employer:

"In Canada, most employees can be dismissed at any time, for almost any reason. However, unless there is just cause for dismissal, notice or pay in lieu is required."

This is basically the same as in most European countries.

Also in Canada you won't lose your healthcare, similar as in Europe. In the US you often do, which is also a big problem for most people obviously.

 

[ahofer]

Companies folding are complex situations with many different factors involved, perhaps too many to casually use anecdotally in this way.

I'm in Western Europe and i don't think i ever heard of a company folding here because the employees cost too much and the company wasn't able to fire anyone. That would be very unreasonable towards companies ofcourse, and it also wouldn't benefit the employees. So no, that's not how the law works here.

European laws don't differ so much from Canadian laws, the latter being only slightly more lenient in favor of the employer:

"In Canada, most employees can be dismissed at any time, for almost any reason. However, unless there is just cause for dismissal, notice or pay in lieu is required."

This is basically the same as in most European countries.

Also in Canada you won't lose your healthcare, similar as in Europe. In the US you often do, which is also a big problem for most people obviously.

I think you being a bit ‘casual’ yourself. There is clearly a tension between strong employment protections and the ability to restructure back to profitability. Capital will flow towards markets with more flexible cost structures, costing jobs in the more rigid ones. We see this in heavily unionized trades in the US.

If you want a more academic argument, try this: https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/new...ity-unemployment-and-the-great-recession.aspx
Of course, this also includes other factors, such as reluctance to *add* employees that cannot be fired.

I wasn’t arguing about government benefits, but about the costs of rigid employment markets.

Both these companies were in France, btw. The Canadian company closed a bunch of stores and restructured management, and survives to this day.

 

[rdenney]

Re: Scientist & Engineers.

What is the difference, how does their education differ?

When I was at university, back in the early 70s, in the UK only graduate degrees on Art and Science, B.A., M.A. and B.Sc., M.Sc. were given. There were however polytechnics which offered two year courses and graduated engineers (along with electricians and plumbers, etc.) A person with a B.Sc. could work as an engineer and often had a higher rank and pay than the engineer from the polytechnic. During the 80s polytechnics merged to universities or they became a university and people graduated with those arts or sciences degrees. At the turn of the century universities started courses for degrees specifically in engineering like B.Eng. and M.Eng.

My acoustics degree is an M.A. That is because it was part of the architecture department which gave degrees in Arts. My B.Sc. and M.A degrees are from Imperial College. It is called a college but in fact it is a global top ranking university.

Meanwhile, we used to call anyone with a degree who worked at an R&D facility or do R&D at a university a scientist. However, as engineering definition and courses have changed as I explained above, who knows what has changed in their world.

Titles, eh?

The USA had specific engineering degrees many decades before the 70’s, and the architecture schools had specific architecture degrees. (I have two of the former, and almost one of the latter.)

But engineering degrees require general physics plus the physics relevant to the engineering discipline, and also considerably more math than most practicing engineers ever need to use, even without computers.

What they lack from general liberal-arts education is language and history.

Any engineer who can’t keep up with a science discussion at the level of this forum either didn’t pay attention or went into something else and forgot their training.

Engineers do focus on the practical application of science, and not all scientists do (nor should they—something like a tenth of research really should be basic research with no specific application outcome expected). Industry scientists and engineers are often indistinguishable, by my observation, and I, as an engineer, often had to (and occasionally still have to) explain the science of a topic to scientists.

But you can’t compare the 8-10 years of collegiate study attained by a person with a doctorate with a basic 4-year degree earned by a back-room pool engineer.

(At no modern time in the USA could a person with a two-year degree claim to have received an engineering degree, or even be able to get credit for it in a professional licensure application. Up until the 60’s and 70’s, a non-degreed person could get licensed with sufficient specific approved experience, but whatever sub-professional degree they had wouldn’t count towards it. Anybody can claim to be a scientist, but the claim of the title “engineer” is covered by practice laws in the USA, as a matter—supposedly—of public safety. Because I’ve worked in and for the public sector, licensure is unavoidably required for me, and I’m still licensed in five states.)

On the point of doctorates: engineering schools have practice degrees and research degrees, even post-master’s. A Doctor of Engineering would struggle to get a tenured academic position, but would wear it proudly in their industry cv. Academics would be expected to have a Ph.D. The difference is the thesis. I see the distinction between medical clinical practitioners—MD’s—and medical researchers with Ph.D.’s the same way, except that laws prohibit the latter from clinical practice that requires prescribing meds.

Very little that is discussed in this forum requires much formal scientific or engineering training beyond high school. I don’t see integrals being shown as equations, nor do I see statistical discussions of things like, say, statistical heteroskedasticity. Any engineer should know what the occasional differential equation means, and any engineer should understand basic parametric applied statistics, but I’ve seen that only rarely here. Most stuff here doesn’t go beyond the technical requirements of, say, amateur radio. And 12-year-olds pass those tests. Let’s not overblow the science horn. I’m not saying many contributors here don’t have a deep well of such, but they know they have to simplify it for this forum.

Rick “so much argument with so little at stake” Denney

 

[ahofer]

I think it was that the Japanese technical electronics corporations had mastered the art of putting out high-power low distortion amplifiers at reasonable prices, and which lasted decades with no adjustments, along with very highly engineered direct drive turntables with high specification motors and again, high engineering precision and design attributes throughout.

And the British and American artisans, who used to make the hifi gear that was most sought after, simply couldn’t compete with this. There was no way that they could make an amplifier equal or better than what the Japanese were doing, nor a turntable, when their primary skills were woodworking, glueing belts together, and mounting wooden trays on springs.

So, in response to this, a pattern started to emerge where, whenever the old school released a new product, the home nation’s audio journalists (and indeed perhaps the English speaking audio journalist group in unison) would enthuse endlessly over it, and their primary advantage that they could talk about was that it sounds simply better. Much better. And we saw the myth emerge about the Japanese amplifiers being sterile and lifeless, and the Japanese turntables similarly, and that the British and American products get your foot tapping with their pace, rhythm and timing, which seem to be miraculously totally absent from a well engineered product. After all, this was war.

The likely fact that the journalists were actually writing what they believed, because they actually heard such differences but didn’t know they were listening through their bias, made it somewhat innocent, and not deliberately mischievous.

Interesting theory, although Japan is home to some of the most hardcore tube/horn fans around - they are also leaders in audio bars where people go to hear giant horn speakers with vinyl and tubes in front of them.

I tend to think it is the affinity for ‘artisan’ products in a mass-produced world.

 

[sarumbear]

The USA had specific engineering degrees many decades before the 70’s, and the architecture schools had specific architecture degrees. (I have two of the former, and almost one of the latter.)

Can you give us some examples of those degree names?

 

[rdenney]

Interesting theory, although Japan is home to some of the most hardcore tube/horn fans around - they are also leaders in audio bars where people go to hear giant horn speakers with vinyl and tubes in front of them.

I tend to think it is the affinity for ‘artisan’ products in a mass-produced world.

"A prophet is not without honor except in his own home."

You are right on the mark for with your second comment. This is part of the "high-touch" reaction to high-tech. People would rather see flawed engineering from actual humans than perfect engineering from what looks like a machine producer. This is why so many brands have turned their designers into rock stars. Even here, would Topping get the respect it does in this forum without John Yang's active involvement? Does Topping's lower regard in the subjectivist forums stem from John Yang not being known there? Would we revere (correct word) the Hypex and Purifi products so much without the humanizing presence of Bruno Putzeys? Do the inexpensive Pioneer SP-BS22LR's sell as well as they do because they measure well (for $100 speakers) or because of Andrew Jones? I confess that the story of Victor Campos (RIP) and Walt Jung made the Adcom GFP-565 much more appealing to me. Isn't the Adcom GFA-555 respected in part because of Nelson Pass? A decade ago, there was still a strong fan contingent for SAE's amps of the late 70's. Surely Jim Bongiorno's (RIP) design of the early Mark amps has much to do with that. And where would Advent have been without Henry Kloss? And what is McIntosh but an institution founded on the principles of guiding visionaries--as much Gordon Gow as Frank McIntosh. Didn't Morris Kessler's acceptance of Class D architecture at ATI do as much as any pile o'measurements to bring real credibility to the concept? Would we believe the research done at Harman were it not for the compelling personalities of Floyd Toole and Sean Olive to humanize and validate it?

It goes on and on. These names and the stories that go with them bring humanity to the products, even if they were stuck together by robots and slaves.

People buy story as much as they buy products, and many (to be honest, including me) would rather have (slightly) sub-optimal equipment if it comes with a good story. Examples abound in all industries that cater to luxury buyers (including just about all of us, protestations notwithstanding).

The cynic would restate my prior paragraph and say people buy brand as much as product. But those stories, personalities, and brands all provide the same thing: A surrogate measure of quality.

The problem with prophet-based endorsements, however, is that there are false prophets out there, both among designers and producers, and among those who opine about them. That's where measurements come in--they validate the credentials those names imply (or not).

The failure of the Japanese conglomerates in the 80's (and as companies they did not fail at all--they just moved on to other things) was that they did not bring the buyer into the human connection. That's important even to their domestic buyers, I think. Note that Marantz has sold really well in the recent past at least in part because of their signature line associated with Ken Ishiwata, whether or not the data-driven among us think that is a good thing. And Pioneer's affiliation with Jones. The Japanese companies are learning.

(This is not new. I can think of examples from at least the last 50 years, and could probably go back further if I was older.)

The one thing the audio press has done, and magazines like Stereophile have been brilliant at it, has been to bring the leading lights of the audio world to their readers. When Sam Tellig wrote about the Adcom preamp, for example, he started with Victor Campos calling him on the phone. That, more than any amount of subjectivist-vs.-objectivist dogma, has promoted the boutique direction.

Back to the thread topic, with this in mind. We love our heroes, and that's what makes it harder to maintain civility. It's not a question of whether Topping's DAC with its 120-dB SINAD is a good DAC, but whether a negative review of it attacks one of Our Heroes. We are all subject to that. When I read a statement that that Adcom preamp is garbage on another forum, my respect for Campos and Jung hears the challenge and looks for the flamethrower. It's not actually about the damn preamp! (Which I've replaced recently with a B&K of similar vintage, not without some pang of regret.) When Amir reviewed a Schiit something-or-other poorly, wars were fought. Schiit more than any new brand depends on its story, and that's what makes Jason Stoddard such a great marketer (despite the cheapness of the trick of his brand name).

Some here have crowned Amir as the new Our Hero, but I sense that part of him at least recoils a bit at that. When people come here from other forums (and it's my view that it's a planned cabal, sending antagonists over here maybe once a week to kick the anthill and then run away laughing) and challenge Our Hero, our respect for Our Hero gets stung we bring out the torches and pitchforks. Congratulations! That makes us all too human after all.

For those who are innumerate, though, that's all they have, and those here who are not innumerate have backing (if we use it) and can even change our minds! But I contend the most hardened data-driven scientist among us is not immune to the power of a compelling story or personality.

Rick "people need their heroes, but heroes never quite live up to the worship and eventually disappoint us" Denney

 

[rdenney]

Can you give us some examples of those degree names?

"Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering." "Master of Science in Engineering." (From reading the diplomas hanging on my wall, earned in the 70's and early 80's.) Reading what was hanging on my father's office wall--degrees earned in the 40's and early 50's: "Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering," "Master of Science in Engineering." These degrees were from leading universities in their respective fields, at least at the time, and not from regional training colleges.

We throw around "EE" all the time here, but what comes in front of it is "Bachelor of Science" not "Bachelor of Engineering." Yet I don't know any US-trained EE whose degree just says "Bachelor of Science" without the "Electrical Engineering" qualifier. I suspect those divisions are required for ABET accreditation, but I haven't looked that up.

That's what I meant by "specific degrees", and countered the former British practice (as described in the post to which I was responding, and from reading your signature) of just naming the degrees generally. I can't think of a time maybe even as far back as the last century when US universities did that. Of course, the trend since engineers were considered college-educated professionals (starting in the late 19th Century, when there were only two specialty areas: Military and Civil) has been to divide into more specific areas.

Most big engineering schools in the USA offer thesis and non-thesis post-graduate options, including "Master of Engineering" and "Doctor of Engineering" vs. "Master of Science in Engineering" and "Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering". When I wrote my dissertation, even at the master's level I was expected to explore what had never been explored and become a world-class expert in that narrow topic. But I was at a very good engineering grad school--there are those who would not have been so demanding, perhaps. My chief mentor there was a physicist, by the way, and held a dual endowed chair at that university in the Engineering and Physics departments.

What those courses of study gave me was perspective and theoretical foundation, not training. I got the training after that.

Rick "including quite a bit of training in EE stuff, but don't ask me about Maxwell's Equations" Denney