At least when it comes to all this insistence on DBTs, and all that stuff. And why our "anecdotal evidence" is just anecdotal, and not really evidence, etc.
(This may belong over in the Blowtorch schematics thread, but since it gives me more chances to type Blowtorch schematics, which is the
raison d'etre for this dump.)
Anyway...............
Some of you may be following the infamous Blowhard thread, over at The Pub. Finally, after wasting countless hours, trying to figure out what their damn problem is, I have finally figured out it is our damn problem.
Case in point. A "buddy" posted this:
I'm somewhat staggered at the idea of an engineer who can't do differential equations, complex variables (and contour integration), and transforms. That certainly doesn't describe any engineer who ever worked for me.
Yeah, guess I am not a real engineer. I never had to do any of that, ever, at any job, at any time. But, I never did R & D. Never claimed I did. (And no, you are not going to suck me into revealing what I did, and where I did it.)
So...........using a Smith Chart, because it did not require any LDEs means I was not a real engineer. So, placing a stub, on a microstrip, to act as a........well, it depended on where you were putting it, and why, and how long it was (1/4 wavelength..........1/2 wavelength.........), but you had to understand something about how it all worked. The technicians didn't understand, which is why they were techs, and guys like me were engineers. But, according to my "buddy", I must have only been a highly-glorified (and possibly over-educated) technician.
Of course, back then..............there were no computer programs to do all that for you. You had to get your master Smith Chart out, make a Zerox copy, and start tracing circular lines, until you reached the right point on the curve. Sorta required knowledge of algebra, since there were complex numbers involved. And, maybe, some calculations to make sure you did not design network that was too high in Q. But, certainly not anything requiring what my "buddy" thinks real engineers do.
So.............if we have such a radical disconnect, as to what makes a real engineer, is it any wonder why they condescendingly look down upon us that don't give a rat's rear-end if the feedback goes round and round? Only if low- or high-feedback designs sound best, to us. And that is the key: how it sounds, and how it sounds to us. Don't care if it sounds good to you, as I am not a real engineer, so I am obviously incapable of designing anything good. So, who cares how it sounds? They don't, or at least, they shouldn't. Not building it for them. Nope, building it for me. And only my opinion counts.
So there.
Ditto for the stuff they build. If they are impressed that it measures really well, then fine. Good for you. Just don't try to tell me that by extension it has to sound good, because I know there is more to it than just that.
No, I don't know what "that" is. Never claimed I did. And if I did, we all know you would not believe me, because I won't be able to produce a bunch of LDEs to explain why that is so.
No, I just found out,
to my ears, low or zero global feedback stuff sounds better. Some other folks obviously agreed, as I was able to make a living at it, once upon a time. (And before you suggest they got wise, which is why I no longer can, it has nothing to do with that. And, no, I am not going to spill the beans on that. You can guess it is because I am getting old, and it is too hard, and if that helps you to sleep at night, then that is what you should believe.)
No, I don't know why it sounds better. Never said I did. Never made any bogus claims as to why, because I do not know.
Of course, I don't know...............I'm not a real engineer! Haven't you been paying attention to what I writing? Oy vey...........
