In article . com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
However the exchange has served the useful purpose of illuminating that
you seem unable to offer any evidence to support your personal beliefs.

No, Jim, the exchange has once again shown that you seem unable to show
any constructive support or understanding of the empirical creative
process, how it takes place, its essential features and the
personalities of creatives.

Sorry, but I am afraid that you are missing the point. What I don't show
"constructive support" for is people presenting their personal beliefs as
if they were established by some reliable evidence, but then failing to
offer any assessable evidence or plausible explanations when invited to
do so.

It is quite possible to employ what you call "empirical" or "creative"
processes, indeed, I'd expect these to be a part of serious sustained
R&D. But the methods used don't preclude (or absolve) the expectation
that any assertions that follow may require some assessable evidence
to support them.

I'm quite happy to leave it to others to decide if your personal
comments about me above have any worth or relevance. To me, though,
they read like you decided to "go for the man, not the ball".

Building a new project - the OP's purpose in posting - is a creative
act, and falls within the usual stages and parameters of creative acts.

Agreed. But was not what I was asking about.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that I have also engaged in such
'processes' over the years, and I agree they often involve impirical
methods. Yet the results can be tested and produce evidence others can
assess. Being 'creative' does not make this totally irrelevant. The
process is not the result. Nor do I think we should expect others to
accept whatever we claim even if we fail to give any evidence they
can assess or explanations they can consider for plausibility.

Regardless of how an amplifier has been designed and built, it is
still possible for someone to use it as part of some suitable
tests to obtain evidence to support or confound the idea that it
'sounds different' to some other amp(s) for some reasons.


[big snip]

So the usefullness of moralistic directions do do "this" or "that"
because one "should" will be of little final consequence,

I'm afraid that it is yourself who is injecting "moralistic" approaches and
inventing "directions" to do things. All I was looking for was some
evidence upon which the OP and the rest of us could judge your assertions.

[big snip]

In that way, I think it has made a useful point which the OP and others
can take into account if they so choose.

Yes, you do like to support your moral standpoint on things with sly
references that 'other people will find I'm right and you are wrong'
don't you.

The process seemed to be that I asked for evidence/plausible explanations,
and your response is as exampled above. To invent words to put into my
mouth and try to criticise me. i.e. "go for the man, not the ball".

TBH Andy, I don't think you do yourself (or those who are enthusiasts
for valve amps) much of a favour by writing as you have in the posting
I am responding to.

I usually note this has been slipped in at some point. I think that in
reality you will have no more or less interest shown in your own
particular views than the interest shown in any apparatchik who has
historically stood in the way of dissidents.

Actually, what happened was that I was curious about what you claimed and
wondered what basis in reality it might have. Hence my questions. They gave
you an opportunity to give an explanation and present any evidence.
Instead, we had the posting to which I am responding.

I was (and still am) quite open to the *possibility* that direct heated
valves do have some specific effect on the results in some designs. Hence
my curiosity. I did find what Nick wrote on this quite interesting.

While the apparatchiks - believing themselves on safe ground - built all
the dams and power stations, the dissidents advanced the culture and
took risks with new ideas. Fair enough, but imagine a world where the
apparatchiks were put in charge of new ideas.

Nice as a sweeping statement in a political speech, but alas it tells us
nothing about valves or amplifiers, I'm afraid.


I can't speak for others, but I am afraid that I don't regard you simply
presenting yourself as a "creative" person employing "empirical" methods
to be, in itself, of much use as evidence. But it may be that others
will regard what you say differently.


Slainte,

Jim


--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html