FPGA Central

I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interestin
and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats busines
apps).



Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? Is there much deman
and are there many jobs available?

What type of work do DSP engineers do?

Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where yo
have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and the
use the information as appropriate?

How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? (such as sa
software engineering, or elec)

One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like softwar
engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than th
client. It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someon
else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to creat
a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier. With dsp, it seem
like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having client
providing their own answers.

Thanks so much for the info.

On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interesting
> and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats business
> apps).

First of all, make up your mind about what you want:
An 'interesting' job or making a living.

> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> and are there many jobs available?
>
> What type of work do DSP engineers do?

I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio
telegraphists used to be at sea in the first half of the
20th century: The operators were there and necessary when
the field was new and worked with morse code. Once voiced
radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use
a radio set.

DSP is headed in the same direction.

> Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where you
> have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and then
> use the information as appropriate?

The side of DSP I know is data processing. In these
applications there are lots of operators with little,
if any, traning who work standardized procedures.
Very little room for 'interesting' DSP.

What little 'interesting' DSP occurs, is about
troubleshooting, where somebody tries something
that doesn't work, and I more often than not
find out what was wrong with the idea. It is
very, very seldom one actually works out something
new or correct a problem.

Since people make basic mistakes, solutions are
correspondingly basic, so there is no $$$ in it
even if you manage to fix something.

> How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? *(such as say
> software engineering, or elec)

I have no idea. However, in these disciplines one
produce actual results, so personal skills or
project progress are easier to monitor and track.

With huge implications for accountability, which
ought to have *some* influence on carreer possibilities
and maybe even pay.

The other main benefit with these disciplines is
that layfolk know they are layfolk. For some reason
everybody and their brother have an opinion about
what ought to be possible in DSP projects.

Which is a main reason DSP apparently runs around
in circles these days.

> One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like software
> engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than the
> client.

Maybe. But the client has more often than not
strong opinions about what ought to be done,
which is a major factor in tearing DSP apart
as a profession.

>*It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someone
> else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to create
> a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier.

That can have a huge impact on the client's business - and
thus on the software engineers paycheck.

>*With dsp, it seems
> like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having clients
> providing their own answers.

You're plain wrong on this. The clients for DSP out there
have *either* seen every episode of Star Trek and every
war movie out there, *or* is a 'technics analphabet'.
In either case, the DSP engineer is basically screwed,
since he has no chance in hell to come even remotely
close to to what the client takes for granted, let alone
expect.

Rune

On Mar 26, 5:51*am, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interesting
> and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats business
> apps).
>
> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> and are there many jobs available?
>
> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where you
> have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and then
> use the information as appropriate?
>
> How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? *(such as say
> software engineering, or elec)
>
> One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like software
> engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than the
> client. *It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someone
> else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to create
> a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier. *With dsp, it seems
> like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having clients
> providing their own answers.
>
> Thanks so much for the info.

I've been doing DSP work for over 30 years, and I don't think I've
ever had a career in DSP. At one time I had a career in sensor systems
for weapons. At another I had a career in telecoms. I currently
develop various measurement and monitoring things, with a big emphasis
on power conservation. I've spent maybe 75% of this time doing DSP of
one sort or another, but it has never been my career.

If you look around the regular posters here you'll find audio experts,
comms experts, sensing experts, and so on. I think for all of them DSP
is just a tool of the trade. Its how they do what they do. Its not the
centre of what they do.

Steve

On Mar 25, 5:51*pm, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interesting
> and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats business
> apps).
>
> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> and are there many jobs available?
>
> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where you
> have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and then
> use the information as appropriate?
>
> How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? *(such as say
> software engineering, or elec)
>
> One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like software
> engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than the
> client. *It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someone
> else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to create
> a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier. *With dsp, it seems
> like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having clients
> providing their own answers.
>
> Thanks so much for the info.

I second Steve's notion about DSP not really being a career for many
of us here. I use it as one of many tools to get things done.
Certainly there will be some (academics, instructors, book writers, ic
designers, etc) who will work purely in DSP, thus have a career in
DSP. I don't think there are many purely DSP positions for an engineer
in a company though.

Clay

What you say about DSP as a tool rather than a career makes sense. If yo
are using it 75% of the time, it is one of your main tools. So, t
rephrase, what are good careers that involve some DSP? Do those career
remain interesting or do they become sort of cookie cutter problems wher
you don't really need to think all that much to solve them?

I have a degree in engineering physics and I think my background gives m
a fair bit of leeway as to which direction I take...of course, it i
definitely not as good as actual work experience but I'm sure there i
still a lot I can do. I have been working as a software developer for
number of years.

noodle22 wrote:

> What you say about DSP as a tool rather than a career makes sense.

No. You missed the point entirely.
It doesn't matter what you do if you are good at what you doing.
In *any* kind of trade, there are masters and there are lamers. It is
better to be the master of ditch digging then a lamer of rocket science.

> If you
> are using it 75% of the time, it is one of your main tools. So, to
> rephrase, what are good careers that involve some DSP? Do those careers
> remain interesting or do they become sort of cookie cutter problems where
> you don't really need to think all that much to solve them?

> I have a degree in engineering physics and I think my background gives me
> a fair bit of leeway as to which direction I take...of course, it is
> definitely not as good as actual work experience but I'm sure there is
> still a lot I can do. I have been working as a software developer for a
> number of years.

You are very good at talking nonsense. Why not a career of a comedian or
a politician?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

>
>
>noodle22 wrote:
>
>> What you say about DSP as a tool rather than a career makes sense.
>
>No. You missed the point entirely.
>It doesn't matter what you do if you are good at what you doing.
>In *any* kind of trade, there are masters and there are lamers. It is
>better to be the master of ditch digging then a lamer of rocket science.
>
>> If you
>> are using it 75% of the time, it is one of your main tools. So, to
>> rephrase, what are good careers that involve some DSP? Do thos
careers
>> remain interesting or do they become sort of cookie cutter problem
where
>> you don't really need to think all that much to solve them?
>
>> I have a degree in engineering physics and I think my background give
me
>> a fair bit of leeway as to which direction I take...of course, it is
>> definitely not as good as actual work experience but I'm sure there is
>> still a lot I can do. I have been working as a software developer fo
a
>> number of years.
>
>You are very good at talking nonsense. Why not a career of a comedian o

>a politician?
>
>
>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>http://www.abvolt.com
>

Vladimir, I think you must have misunderstood. I am not looking for jus
any kind of career, and the masters/lamers comment is quite obvious an
irrelevant. What I am saying is that I enjoy doing the little bit of ds
that I have done in school and for fun and am interested in learning abou
careers where individuals do dsp. I'm not sure how I'm talking nonsens
and I don't really care one way or the other. I am just looking for som
information on dsp related careers and this seems to be the best spot t
find dsp experts and amateurs alike. If I have not been stating my inten
clearly enough, I hope this helps. Steve and Clay really helped me get
better idea of the questions I should be asking since I was definitel
starting off with some wrong ideas.

I really think you might be among the best suited to offer some actua
career advice if you are interested since your signature states that yo
are a DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant.

>>
>>
>>noodle22 wrote:
>>
>>> What you say about DSP as a tool rather than a career makes sense.
>>
>>No. You missed the point entirely.
>>It doesn't matter what you do if you are good at what you doing.
>>In *any* kind of trade, there are masters and there are lamers. It is
>>better to be the master of ditch digging then a lamer of rocke
science.
>>
>>> If you
>>> are using it 75% of the time, it is one of your main tools. So, to
>>> rephrase, what are good careers that involve some DSP? Do those
>careers
>>> remain interesting or do they become sort of cookie cutter problems
>where
>>> you don't really need to think all that much to solve them?
>>
>>> I have a degree in engineering physics and I think my backgroun
gives
>me
>>> a fair bit of leeway as to which direction I take...of course, it is
>>> definitely not as good as actual work experience but I'm sure ther
is
>>> still a lot I can do. I have been working as a software develope
for
>a
>>> number of years.
>>
>>You are very good at talking nonsense. Why not a career of a comedia
or
>
>>a politician?
>>
>>
>>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>>http://www.abvolt.com
>>
>
>Vladimir, I think you must have misunderstood. I am not looking fo
just
>any kind of career, and the masters/lamers comment is quite obvious and
>irrelevant. What I am saying is that I enjoy doing the little bit o
dsp
>that I have done in school and for fun and am interested in learnin
about
>careers where individuals do dsp. I'm not sure how I'm talking nonsense
>and I don't really care one way or the other. I am just looking fo
some
>information on dsp related careers and this seems to be the best spot to
>find dsp experts and amateurs alike. If I have not been stating m
intent
>clearly enough, I hope this helps. Steve and Clay really helped me ge
a
>better idea of the questions I should be asking since I was definitely
>starting off with some wrong ideas.
>
>I really think you might be among the best suited to offer some actual
>career advice if you are interested since your signature states that you
>are a DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant.
>
>
>

There are a fair number of DSP jobs in the world. You have probably als
noticed that people who are skilled at DSP, or think they are skilled a
DSP, can be arrogant at times. This is probably true in any field. I ca
also be a bit cocky some days. I did my undergraduate work in Physics so
tend to like students from related degrees. I started out as a
optoelectonics hardware design engineer and then moved into signa
processing and finished a MS and PhD in EE along the way. I am only tellin
you this because I think that it is important these days to get a MS degre
(you can do this while working or go back to school) if you want to hav
more opportunities to do primarily signal processing work. In my opinion
some of the most interesting signal processing work is in the defens
communities. There is also interesting work in other areas, but th
problems will generally be different. By reading and asking questions yo
are on the right track. When you look for a job in DSP try to fnd a plac
where you can work with a good DSP mentor (or several mentors). Make that
serious criteria for your job selections. Although there are some goo
books, there is no substitute for good mentoring. Also, in addition t
software skills I would recommend working on some general hardware skills
Good DSP people often need to be good systems engineers. Hey, DSP is fun!
like it because the connections between theory and practice are very close
As you keep progressing at it you will probably also find that it ca
provide a very nice living. It will take some time to become a "master" a
DSP, so enjoy the journey...even if someone calls you a "lamer" some day.
Take care!

Dave

On 26 Mar, 17:24, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>*I'm not sure how I'm talking nonsense

The nonsense is that you expect to make a living from
your technical skills and interest in DSP. You are
clearly interested, you might have talent and for all
I know you might even be good at what you do.

Just don't base carreer choises on this.

If you have technical skills and interests, get a
well-paying job and find a hobby where you can use
your skills. Build an RC plane from scratch, or
something like that.

> and I don't really care one way or the other.

Oh, you should.

The problem is that none of your skills or interests
are sufficient to make *other* people hire or pay you.
That's the difference between work and hobby: Hobbies
are expenses; jobs provide income.

Unless you get to work with people who are able to
recognize your skills - which means these other people
would need to have similar skills themselves - you
will never be able to use them. Instead, you will be
busy dodging Star Trek or James Bond type insanities,
from people which lack even the slighets trace of
knowledge or insight in DSP, but who are your bosses
and superiors. Which will not be helpful if you want
promotions in your job.

Or you will do implementation work. Which people with
your level of interest and dedication will not be
interested in, for very long.

As I said in my first post: Your choise stands between
*either* getting an 'interesting' job *or* making a
living.

Rune

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:53:09 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:

> On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP
>> interesting and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly
>> beats business apps).
>
> First of all, make up your mind about what you want: An 'interesting'
> job or making a living.
>
>> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? Â*Is there much demand
>> and are there many jobs available?
>>
>> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio telegraphists used
> to be at sea in the first half of the 20th century: The operators were
> there and necessary when the field was new and worked with morse code.
> Once voiced radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
> operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use a radio set.
>
> DSP is headed in the same direction.

(snip)

I don't see it heading in that direction at all, at least not if you can
do embedded software or FPGA work. Canned DSP routines for FPGAs and
DSPs are crap, unless you happen to need one for one of the big
applications. As long as there are people out there making products that
do new things, there will be demand for other people who can make those
products work.

I _do_ think that if you want to get a job "doing DSP" you need to make
sure you have circuits, embedded software, and/or FPGA skills, because
you'll get hired into one of those positions. If your DSP skills get you
hired at all, it'll be because you're getting hired to do one of the
above three jobs, and your manager understands that DSP skills is a part
of it.

Getting a pure DSP job, however, is a very limited field, much like a
pure control systems egghead job would be -- having just DSP theory is
like having an engine with no car. Nice, but not useful.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On 27 Mar, 15:00, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:53:09 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP
> >> interesting and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly
> >> beats business apps).
>
> > First of all, make up your mind about what you want: An 'interesting'
> > job or making a living.
>
> >> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> >> and are there many jobs available?
>
> >> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> > I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio telegraphists used
> > to be at sea in the first half of the 20th century: The operators were
> > there and necessary when the field was new and worked with morse code.
> > Once voiced radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
> > operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use a radio set.
>
> > DSP is headed in the same direction.
>
> (snip)
>
> I don't see it heading in that direction at all,

It is. DSP is about designing - not building - the radio systems.
Sure, there will be a one or two decades with trial'n error,
but then the indsutry will gravitate towards one or two 'standard'
solutions.

100 years ago there was lots of debate about power supplies;
AC vs DC, voltages and frequencies. Now the two standard systems
are 60 Hz / 110 V and 50 Hz / 220 V.

It doesn't matter if somebody comes up with a design and can
prove that it would work optimally with 109.78 Hz / 19.8 V.
Unless it can work with one of the two standard solutions,
no one will be interested.

In 50 years there will be standard solutions for just about
anything; the main trends will emerge in the next couple
of decades. Once that has happened, there will be no more
need for DSP designs. In the mean time, the main effort
is about politics.

> at least not if you can
> do embedded software or FPGA work. *Canned DSP routines for FPGAs and
> DSPs are crap,

Sure. But that doesn't stop DSP courses gravitating
into matlab signal processing toolbox training sessions...

> unless you happen to need one for one of the big
> applications. *As long as there are people out there making products that
> do new things, there will be demand for other people who can make those
> products work.

I don't see that people do *new* thing; they keep doing
the same old stuff but economy and engineering let them do
them in other contexts. Once upon a time you had to be
involved in classified stuff to get access to a GPS
position sensor. Now you get GPS everywhere, in phones,
cameras, anything with an IC. The people who design
such IC don't need to know squat abou the GPS; they
just need to be able to read the Interface Specification
for the module.

With time the robust, useful stuff will survive while
all the hyped-up fads will fall through. Once people
take a couple of steps back from the maths and wiring
diagrams, and see the big picture, they will see what
methods work almost everywhere, and which fall through.

Once people obtain that awareness, there will be little
incentive for checking new techniques. Using the old
ones in new contexts - yes - but not developing new
stuff.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 27 Mar, 15:00, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:53:09 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP
>>>> interesting and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly
>>>> beats business apps).
>>> First of all, make up your mind about what you want: An 'interesting'
>>> job or making a living.
>>>> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? Is there much demand
>>>> and are there many jobs available?
>>>> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>>> I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio telegraphists used
>>> to be at sea in the first half of the 20th century: The operators were
>>> there and necessary when the field was new and worked with morse code.
>>> Once voiced radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
>>> operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use a radio set.
>>> DSP is headed in the same direction.
>> (snip)
>>
>> I don't see it heading in that direction at all,
>
> It is. DSP is about designing - not building - the radio systems.
> Sure, there will be a one or two decades with trial'n error,
> but then the indsutry will gravitate towards one or two 'standard'
> solutions.
>
> 100 years ago there was lots of debate about power supplies;
> AC vs DC, voltages and frequencies. Now the two standard systems
> are 60 Hz / 110 V and 50 Hz / 220 V.
>
> It doesn't matter if somebody comes up with a design and can
> prove that it would work optimally with 109.78 Hz / 19.8 V.
> Unless it can work with one of the two standard solutions,
> no one will be interested.
>
> In 50 years there will be standard solutions for just about
> anything; the main trends will emerge in the next couple
> of decades. Once that has happened, there will be no more
> need for DSP designs. In the mean time, the main effort
> is about politics.
>
>> at least not if you can
>> do embedded software or FPGA work. Canned DSP routines for FPGAs and
>> DSPs are crap,
>
> Sure. But that doesn't stop DSP courses gravitating
> into matlab signal processing toolbox training sessions...
>
>> unless you happen to need one for one of the big
>> applications. As long as there are people out there making products that
>> do new things, there will be demand for other people who can make those
>> products work.
>
> I don't see that people do *new* thing; they keep doing
> the same old stuff but economy and engineering let them do
> them in other contexts. Once upon a time you had to be
> involved in classified stuff to get access to a GPS
> position sensor. Now you get GPS everywhere, in phones,
> cameras, anything with an IC. The people who design
> such IC don't need to know squat abou the GPS; they
> just need to be able to read the Interface Specification
> for the module.
>
> With time the robust, useful stuff will survive while
> all the hyped-up fads will fall through. Once people
> take a couple of steps back from the maths and wiring
> diagrams, and see the big picture, they will see what
> methods work almost everywhere, and which fall through.
>
> Once people obtain that awareness, there will be little
> incentive for checking new techniques. Using the old
> ones in new contexts - yes - but not developing new
> stuff.

Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
repeating that error?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
> repeating that error?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend.
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/361397.html

Jeff Cunningham wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
>> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
>> repeating that error?
>
> FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend.

My faith in bureaucracy is somewhat restored!

> http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/361397.html

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jeff Cunningham wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
>> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
>> repeating that error?
>
> FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend.
> http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/361397.html

What is the verdict on :Everything that can be invented has been
invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents,
1899.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 27 Mar, 20:46, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 27 Mar, 15:00, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:53:09 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:
> >>> On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP
> >>>> interesting and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly
> >>>> beats business apps).
> >>> First of all, make up your mind about what you want: An 'interesting'
> >>> job or making a living.
> >>>> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> >>>> and are there many jobs available?
> >>>> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
> >>> I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio telegraphists used
> >>> to be at sea in the first half of the 20th century: The operators were
> >>> there and necessary when the field was new and worked with morse code..
> >>> Once voiced radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
> >>> operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use a radio set.
> >>> DSP is headed in the same direction.
> >> (snip)
>
> >> I don't see it heading in that direction at all,
>
> > It is. DSP is about designing - not building - the radio systems.
> > Sure, there will be a one or two decades with trial'n error,
> > but then the indsutry will gravitate towards one or two 'standard'
> > solutions.
>
> > 100 years ago there was lots of debate about power supplies;
> > AC vs DC, voltages and frequencies. Now the two standard systems
> > are 60 Hz / 110 V and 50 Hz / 220 V.
>
> > It doesn't matter if somebody comes up with a design and can
> > prove that it would work optimally with 109.78 Hz / 19.8 V.
> > Unless it can work with one of the two standard solutions,
> > no one will be interested.
>
> > In 50 years there will be standard solutions for just about
> > anything; the main trends will emerge in the next couple
> > of decades. Once that has happened, there will be no more
> > need for DSP designs. In the mean time, the main effort
> > is about politics.
>
> >> at least not if you can
> >> do embedded software or FPGA work. *Canned DSP routines for FPGAs and
> >> DSPs are crap,
>
> > Sure. But that doesn't stop DSP courses gravitating
> > into matlab signal processing toolbox training sessions...
>
> >> unless you happen to need one for one of the big
> >> applications. *As long as there are people out there making productsthat
> >> do new things, there will be demand for other people who can make those
> >> products work.
>
> > I don't see that people do *new* thing; they keep doing
> > the same old stuff but economy and engineering let them do
> > them in other contexts. Once upon a time you had to be
> > involved in classified stuff to get access to a GPS
> > position sensor. Now you get GPS everywhere, in phones,
> > cameras, anything with an IC. The people who design
> > such IC don't need to know squat abou the GPS; they
> > just need to be able to read the Interface Specification
> > for the module.
>
> > With time the robust, useful stuff will survive while
> > all the hyped-up fads will fall through. Once people
> > take a couple of steps back from the maths and wiring
> > diagrams, and see the big picture, they will see what
> > methods work almost everywhere, and which fall through.
>
> > Once people obtain that awareness, there will be little
> > incentive for checking new techniques. Using the old
> > ones in new contexts - yes - but not developing new
> > stuff.
>
> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
> repeating that error?

Nope. The wheel is probably one of the most important
inventions in human history, and was invented by one or
more persons whose intellects were comparable by Newton
or Einstein.

But we don't study wheels these days. We use them.

It's the same with DSP. It's one tool among many.
It takes a bit of training to master - like a power
drill - but that's about it. Once you know the dos
and don'ts, there is little more to it.

Rune

On Mar 27, 4:51*pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Jeff Cunningham wrote:
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
> >> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
> >> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
> >> repeating that error?
>
> > FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is an urban legend.
> >http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/361397.html
>
> What is the verdict on :Everything that can be invented has been
> invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents,
> 1899.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

All that this story verifies is that political hacks were appointed to
high position back then just as they are today

Thanks everyone for your responses. I have learned quite a bit about th
field from you and will need to think on it some more

@Dave You gave some encouraging advice. Another degree probably would no
be a bad idea and I think I would be up for doing it provided I found
field that I truly liked. The Mentor comment was also good. I have
mentor now who provides quite a bit of insight to me for project managemen
(beyond the PMP stuff). It is really useful and I hope I will always b
lucky enough to have a good mentor when needed. Defense makes sense. No
sure how keen I would be to work for defense but definitely wort
considering.

@Rune You have a much darker view of this type of work and I will conside
you comments and research a bit more. I don't want to be in a dying field
I had assumed that I would make money comparable to any othe
engineer if I was in a field that had a lot of dsp work but you fee
otherwise so that is going to be a key consideration. It is true that
lot of DSP functionaltiy now comes in software packages that are fairl
usable as is for many applications.

@Tim I have a friend who specialized in FPGAs. I had never reall
considered them and their relation to dsp but will ask him more about it.
thanks.

In general, the whole concept of doing a job and then having dsp as par
of the job, rather than doing a job focused on dsp has been clarified fo
me. I think the first alternative sounds better anyway. Probably more fu
to do dsp just some of the time.

Thanks

>I don't want to be in a dying field.

I heard that currently finance industry is suffering a lot, that does no
mean MBA in Finance is bad idea or becoming CA is bad idea.

> I had assumed that I would make money comparable to an
other
>engineer if I was in a field that had a lot of dsp work

As Rune said earlier decide what u want 'interesting job' or 'goo
living'. What I belive is if u r good in what u do, money will follow
Money is always a byproduct.


Chintan

On Mar 28, 4:42*am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 27 Mar, 15:00, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:53:09 -0700, Rune Allnor wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar, 22:51, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP
> > >> interesting and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly
> > >> beats business apps).
>
> > > First of all, make up your mind about what you want: An 'interesting'
> > > job or making a living.
>
> > >> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> > >> and are there many jobs available?
>
> > >> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> > > I'd say DSP is a transitionary discpline, like radio telegraphists used
> > > to be at sea in the first half of the 20th century: The operators were
> > > there and necessary when the field was new and worked with morse code..
> > > Once voiced radio was possible, the specialized skills of the radio
> > > operator were no longer necessary, as anyone could use a radio set.
>
> > > DSP is headed in the same direction.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > I don't see it heading in that direction at all,
>
> It is. DSP is about designing - not building - the radio systems.
> Sure, there will be a one or two decades with trial'n error,
> but then the indsutry will gravitate towards one or two 'standard'
> solutions.
>
> 100 years ago there was lots of debate about power supplies;
> AC vs DC, voltages and frequencies. Now the two standard systems
> are 60 Hz / 110 V and 50 Hz / 220 V.
>

Funny enough I read that the Chinese are going back to dc transmission
of power for some applications.


Hardy

On Mar 26, 10:51*am, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interesting
> and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats business
> apps).
>
> Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> and are there many jobs available?
>
> What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where you
> have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and then
> use the information as appropriate?
>
> How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? *(such as say
> software engineering, or elec)
>
> One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like software
> engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than the
> client. *It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someone
> else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to create
> a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier. *With dsp, it seems
> like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having clients
> providing their own answers.
>
> Thanks so much for the info.

No, unless you happen to be Chinese. In the next 20-30 years all work
will be done there.

Hardy

On Mar 27, 6:14*pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:51*am, "noodle22" <jw970...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know this is a subjective question but I've always found DSP interesting
> > and have considered doing a career in it (it certainly beats business
> > apps).
>
> > Is the field growing, shrinking, or not changing? *Is there much demand
> > and are there many jobs available?
>
> > What type of work do DSP engineers do?
>
> > Do people do new things in DSP or is it kind of the same story where you
> > have a signal, apply some well known filters or transformations, and then
> > use the information as appropriate?
>
> > How does the pay compare to other types of engineering? *(such as say
> > software engineering, or elec)
>
> > One thing I personally like about dsp is that it seems like software
> > engineers can actually solve the engineering problems rather than the
> > client. *It seems like for the most part as a software developer, someone
> > else has already done the interesting math and they just want me to create
> > a program that makes it's calculation a bit easier. *With dsp, it seems
> > like I might be able to do the program AND the math without having clients
> > providing their own answers.
>
> > Thanks so much for the info.
>
> No, unless you happen to be Chinese. In the next 20-30 years all work
> will be done there.
>
> Hardy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

HardySpicer,

Don't encourage him. He needs to be Chinese AND live in China.

spamfree

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 27 Mar, 20:46, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

...

>> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
>> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
>> repeating that error?
>
> Nope. The wheel is probably one of the most important
> inventions in human history, and was invented by one or
> more persons whose intellects were comparable by Newton
> or Einstein.
>
> But we don't study wheels these days. We use them.
>
> It's the same with DSP. It's one tool among many.
> It takes a bit of training to master - like a power
> drill - but that's about it. Once you know the dos
> and don'ts, there is little more to it.

But there will still be new techniques that we can't even imagine now.

Eight years ago, an acquaintance had a small malignant tumor in a
ureter. The ureter had to be removed. Without the ureter, a perfectly
good kidney had to be removed also. (It was donated for transplant.)
Last December, I too was diagnosed with a malignant ureter tumor. Both
my kidneys are impaired. Without either, I would probably need dialysis.
Two and a half weeks ago, the tumor was removed by excising the bottom
third of the ureter. Tissue from the bladder was formed into a tube to
replace the lost ureter section. Today, I am cancer free and fully
healed. Both kidneys work.

What techniques will the next eight years bring?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:28:50 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rune Allnor wrote:
>> On 27 Mar, 20:46, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Somewhere around 1900, The British Patent Office considered shutting
>>> down on the grounds that nothing new was left to be invented. Are you
>>> repeating that error?
>>
>> Nope. The wheel is probably one of the most important
>> inventions in human history, and was invented by one or
>> more persons whose intellects were comparable by Newton
>> or Einstein.
>>
>> But we don't study wheels these days. We use them.
>>
>> It's the same with DSP. It's one tool among many.
>> It takes a bit of training to master - like a power
>> drill - but that's about it. Once you know the dos
>> and don'ts, there is little more to it.
>
>But there will still be new techniques that we can't even imagine now.
>
>Eight years ago, an acquaintance had a small malignant tumor in a
>ureter. The ureter had to be removed. Without the ureter, a perfectly
>good kidney had to be removed also. (It was donated for transplant.)
>Last December, I too was diagnosed with a malignant ureter tumor. Both
>my kidneys are impaired. Without either, I would probably need dialysis.
>Two and a half weeks ago, the tumor was removed by excising the bottom
>third of the ureter. Tissue from the bladder was formed into a tube to
>replace the lost ureter section. Today, I am cancer free and fully
>healed. Both kidneys work.
>
>What techniques will the next eight years bring?
>
>Jerry

Glad to hear you've won another battle with time Jerry.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Blog: http://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1/hf/Eric_Jacobsen.php

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

...

> Glad to hear you've won another battle with time Jerry.

Thanks, Eric. Let's not lose the point I hoped to make, that there are
always new things coming along, even if those new things can be seen
after their introduction as developed from old ones.

I'm going out to walk the dog and maybe watch a spotted salamander
migration.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯