• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Paul McGowan throws in the towel (Not really but it’s movement in the right direction)

The PE thing is useless in this context. IMO, it's a grift, but the only time you need to pony up is if you're involved in certain civil projects.

I'm not big on equating competent engineering with credentials, but of course I have a horse in that race having run several engineering departments and taught engineering courses without ever having spent even a minute in an engineering classroom or course.
My reply was in context to a member who stated PS Audio engineers were not engineers, based only on a Linked In profile, and that if someone is going to call someone a “fake engineer” they should reference a regulatory body rather than a social media site.

I’m not trying to argue or advocate licensing, so I’m curious how my post may have been taken as such.
 
they should reference a regulatory body
In this context, that conveys no legitimacy since there is no regulatory body covering audio engineering. No idea (nor do I care) who PS Audio employs and how one would adjudge them "real" or "fake" engineers.
 
In this context, that conveys no legitimacy since there is no regulatory body covering audio engineering. No idea (nor do I care) who PS Audio employs and how one would adjudge them "real" or "fake" engineers.
Ah. My thought was more in line with PS Audio being involved in the design and production of electrical products, and that their employees may be accredited in some capacity.

It seems to be different in the U.S.A. We have apparently different and strict regulations around protected titles in Canada.
 
I can probably count on one hand, maybe part of another, how many EE-oriented PEs I met over ~40 years designing circuits. It is more a civil engineer thing, but some gov't positions, universities, and test labs wanted PEs to certify designs and results. I considered getting one a few times, but it is a bit of a PITA with almost zero reward, and opens you up to greater liability. For most engineers in the USA, there is no accreditation, besides that of their tech school or college. It is by degree and experience. Certain jobs do require additional certificates, but the vast majority of those I have seen are SW certs by Microsoft and the like for IT folk and programmers (who may not have degrees). Some states do require a PE to use the title "Consulting Engineer" or even "Consultant" in an engineering firm. I got around that at one point years back when asked to consult in a state with such a requirement, but I think it was because I was not a resident of that state.

Nor would the vast majority, all I think, of the companies I and my friends worked for list the engineers on staff. That was usually considered proprietary information closely guarded by corporate. I am actually on LinkedIn, but many folk are not, as it is often of (very) limited value and leads to a wealth of extra junk emails to wade through. Example: they sent me a job opening for "Retired" as program manager for Netflix. Apparently their algorithm does not know what "retired" means, nor understand that "analog IC design and test" does not qualify me to manage a software team at Netflix. Some companies also enjoin their employees from publicly listing current job info on sites like LinkedIn (some do it anyway, with various repercussions if caught, up to termination).
 
Last edited:
Waiting on measurements...where have I heard this before?
 
In my observation on certain, longstanding audiophile sites, equipment that measures well is gaining increasing traction. There is an admission that Purifi and Hypex amps, (for instance), are delivering more clarity, transparency, and crisper dynamics that those users have heard from much more expensive, amps of audiophile mystique -- and they are enjoyed more than the latter on that account.
I’d like to see that put to the test. You can’t get more transparent than completely audibly transparent.
It may be indictive of a gradual move away from audiophile users' preference for "euphonic" above "accurate" performance. However I can assure you there are plenty of holdouts for "euphonics".
I’m one of them. But at least I know the nature of it.
 
You called have changed “towel” to “sock”?
Not sure I get your meaning. Title was clickbait and inflammatory, we reserve the right to modify, edit or remove any content posted. It was my judgement that the Title was misleading and a touch dramatic. This is part of my job. I don’t relish this part but I deemed it appropriate and constructive to better reflect the actual situation.

Thank you for your support and understanding. ;)
 
you think Paul has a personal stylist?
 
I can probably count on one hand, maybe part of another, how many EE-oriented PEs I met over ~40 years designing circuits. It is more a civil engineer thing, but some gov't positions, universities, and test labs wanted PEs to certify designs and results. I considered getting one a few times, but it is a bit of a PITA with almost zero reward, and opens you up to greater liability. For most engineers in the USA, there is no accreditation, besides that of their tech school or college. It is by degree and experience. Certain jobs do require additional certificates, but the vast majority of those I have seen are SW certs by Microsoft and the like for IT folk and programmers (who may not have degrees). Some states do require a PE to use the title "Consulting Engineer" or even "Consultant" in an engineering firm. I got around that at one point years back when asked to consult in a state with such a requirement, but I think it was because I was not a resident of that state.

Nor would the vast majority, all I think, of the companies I and my friends worked for list the engineers on staff. That was usually considered proprietary information closely guarded by corporate. I am actually on LinkedIn, but many folk are not, as it is often of (very) limited value and leads to a wealth of extra junk emails to wade through. Example: they sent me a job opening for "Retired" as program manager for Netflix. Apparently their algorithm does not know what "retired" means, nor understand that "analog IC design and test" does not qualify me to manage a software team at Netflix. Some companies also enjoin their employees from publicly listing current job info on sites like LinkedIn (some do it anyway, with various repercussions if caught, up to termination).
Two of my sons and my daughter-in-law have engineering degrees (ME, EE, CE) and work in the US. She's a Civil Engineer and passed the exam for certification. The other two, who work in construction and ICs, never bothered.

The oldest is a 'software engineer', although his degrees were in Computational Physics and Business (btw, he designed some decent speakers for a class project in undergrad). I was amused to learn he inspired this post:

1717674860125.png
 
If someone has a degree from an accredited engineering school, they are an engineer.

As people have alluded to, a Professional Engineer (PE) license is pretty much ONLY necessary for civil and mechanical engineers who work on building projects and inspections that require the signing of official forms. EEs don't need a PE to get a job. In my EE class, I think only one guy got the PE, and that's cause he wanted to show everyone that he could ace the very tough second exam. BTW, PE licenses are issued by all 50 states. They are not federal licenses.)

Hotshots who've read a few books and managed to get a job as a designer, or even to run a company (q.v. Alan Shaw) are NOT ENGINEERS. They are self-taught electronics designers. They can call themselves engineers. But ask them about Kirchhoff's law, or to solve a diff. eq (or even knowing what the phrase "diff eq" refers to) or sometimes even Ohm's law, and...nada.

It's kinda the same as the difference between someone with a CompSci Bachelor's and someone who went to a coding camp. The latter may be able to write code that nominally does the job, but they are unlikely to build robust, bulletproof code, because they know little about error catching, or keeping an eye out for memory leakage, or enforcing proper typing and variable use if the language itself doesn't force that; yada yada,
 
Two of my sons and my daughter-in-law have engineering degrees (ME, EE, CE) and work in the US. She's a Civil Engineer and passed the exam for certification. The other two, who work in construction and ICs, never bothered.

The oldest is a 'software engineer', although his degrees were in Computational Physics and Business (btw, he designed some decent speakers for a class project in undergrad). I was amused to learn he inspired this post:

View attachment 373470
... but only if it's in hex.
 
And, if memory serves a year (or two?) working for a PE.
4 years. Reduced to 3 years if you have a Masters degree in engineering. The time has to have been 'served' before you can apply to take the PE exam.

There are also continuing education requirements for PEs in most states.

(please note this tangent is for the US -- requirements likely differ in other countries)

WRT to EEs, lots get PE licenses in the building design world. Power, circuits, alarm systems, telecon, etc. drawings all need to be stamped for the permitting process.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SIY
Two of my sons and my daughter-in-law have engineering degrees (ME, EE, CE) and work in the US. She's a Civil Engineer and passed the exam for certification. The other two, who work in construction and ICs, never bothered.

The oldest is a 'software engineer', although his degrees were in Computational Physics and Business (btw, he designed some decent speakers for a class project in undergrad). I was amused to learn he inspired this post:

View attachment 373470
My favorite similar story is from a friend's (successful) effort to get into a famous school's PhD program. They had a pre-qual day wherein the candidate was walked around several professors who would quiz his expertise in various areas to make sure the basics were sound before accepted into the PhD program. From what he said, it was pretty tough, ranging from very basic stuff he might not have used in a awhile, to more advanced concepts introduced at the post-grad level. The last interview was with their EM guru, who drew out a simple RLC circuit to solve for its transfer function. My friend thought that was great, something he could handle several ways, when the prof leaned back in his chair and said "Using Maxwell's equations." It was all my friend could do to not get up and walk out in shame.
 
The oldest is a 'software engineer', although his degrees were in Computational Physics and Business (btw, he designed some decent speakers for a class project in undergrad). I was amused to learn he inspired this post:

View attachment 373470
Having spent years coding in Z80 assembler back in the 1980s, I can relate. :cool:
 
In my observation on certain, longstanding audiophile sites, equipment that measures well is gaining increasing traction. There is an admission that Purifi and Hypex amps, (for instance), are delivering more clarity, transparency, and crisper dynamics that those users have heard from much more expensive, amps of audiophile mystique -- and they are enjoyed more than the latter on that account.
To me this is funny because it is choosing to accept and repeat a subjective review because it fits with the desired outcome. Where is the call for a double blind test?

Anybody that would say they prefer the other equipment based only on sighted listening would be dismissed and told to do a double blind test.

Accepting expectation bias in one direction is not very scientific.
 
My friend thought that was great, something he could handle several ways, when the prof leaned back in his chair and said "Using Maxwell's equations." It was all my friend could do to not get up and walk out in shame.
Meh, use the continuity equation to trivially get to Kirchoff's Law, then proceed as usual. :D

And if you really want to be a smartass, respond with, "You mean the Heaviside formulation?"
 
Having spent years coding in Z80 assembler back in the 1980s, I can relate. :cool:
You are not alone.
Well ok, not years (but it seemed like years). We had a Heathkit H-89 (Z80A) in the lab when I was first in grad school. Adding (or interfacing) anything new to it usually required some dedication. It was a great little machine, though, and I loved it. Wish I had one. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom