"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Problems with whose understanding of the empirical creative process?

Andy why do you limit the creative process to just the empirical?

Doesn't the creative process also include the theoretical and artistic?

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.

True, but on in a very limited way as explained above, whether the new
project involves making a painting or a bridge over a large river.

I would direct you to any study of the
creative process, such as the four stage model of preparation,
incubation, inspiration and completion, which will do for starters.

Seems like a red herring, given that Andy has apparently already excluded
art and theory from the creative process.

Andy, can't you stick to the point you already botched?

The OP is at the stage of preparation, and probably the first stages of
inspiration, though I would expect that this is a fairly dormant stage
where a large variety of ideas are assembled and mulled over.

Seems like Andy is trying to engage in thought control by exluding theory
and art from the project.

The
materials used at this stage may (or may not in many cases) include but
will not be restricted to theoretical data and statistical analysis.

Materials for constructing a power amp are tangible, data and analysis are
abstractions and thoughts.

Therefore restricting materials to data and analysis is like comparing
apples to poetry.

snip remaining flatulant and equally poorly-thought-out self-serving prose

In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
We can go on forever like this but what's the point. You lecture at
university level in engineering and publish books (as far as I know),

Jim has also designed some well regarded commercial amplifiers.
I lecture at university level in the psychology of media, creativity
arts and performence and I also publish books.

And just where do those qualifications fit in to engineering? ;-) Because
designing an amp *is* engineering - unless you think all the components
you've 'discovered' invented themselves.

Drop your arrogant and dismissive tone with me and I'll do the same with
you. And could I suggest that if you want to hear what DHTs sound like,
you BUILD something with them rather than annoying those who actually do
so do with your insatiable needs for evidence and proof of everything.

I'd guess Jim - like most of us oldies - has built many things with valves
and simply realises/remembers the limitations of them - regardless of type
- in a practical power amp, as in so much else. So when someone claims
these magical properties - which is what they are if you're saying they
can't be measured - tends to take it all with a pinch of salt.

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andy why do you limit the creative process to just the empirical?
Doesn't the creative process also include the theoretical and artistic?

Hello Arny - yes you are right, of course it does - that goes without
saying.


In this instance we were talking about constructing an
amplifier. I've nothing against you seeing that as partly theoretical
and partly artistic, but without the empirical the damned amp won't get
built.

So far there's no convincing argument here against Mr. Plowman's statements.

"Arfa Daily" wrote



What is the theory behind an indirectly heated valve, having an inferior
performance to a directly heated one ? Not being contentious - just
interested ...


No idea about the *theory* but I have seen the phrase 'grey' (by comparison)
applied to the sound produced by indirectly heated valves. If you Google the
phrase 'direct vs, indirect heated valves' you'll get a load of interesting
stuff about plumbing and boilers....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
We can go on forever like this but what's the point. You lecture at
university level in engineering and publish books (as far as I know),

Jim has also designed some well regarded commercial amplifiers.
I lecture at university level in the psychology of media, creativity
arts and performence and I also publish books.

And just where do those qualifications fit in to engineering? ;-) Because
designing an amp *is* engineering - unless you think all the components
you've 'discovered' invented themselves.

Drop your arrogant and dismissive tone with me and I'll do the same with
you. And could I suggest that if you want to hear what DHTs sound like,
you BUILD something with them rather than annoying those who actually do
so do with your insatiable needs for evidence and proof of everything.

I'd guess Jim - like most of us oldies - has built many things with valves
and simply realises/remembers the limitations of them - regardless of type
- in a practical power amp, as in so much else. So when someone claims
these magical properties - which is what they are if you're saying they
can't be measured - tends to take it all with a pinch of salt.



The only person banging on about 'magical properties' in this group is
you....

The only person banging on about 'magical properties' in this group is
you....

Let's try an analogy to see if we can;t go a bit further than
"everything not substantiated in a double blind test (preferably
repeated) is magical and faith based"

Schumacher regularly tests out different motor and suspension tweaks in
his Ferrari. He gets back to the pits and says "this suspension mod is
clearly better"

What do the team do?
a) Dismiss this as magical and faith based and leave the car
unmodified, as it was worked out in theory on the drawing board?
b) Make a working assumption that Schumacher is right and use the mod
in the next race and then make a post-race evaluation?

Andy Evans wrote:
The only person banging on about 'magical properties' in this group is
you....

Let's try an analogy to see if we can;t go a bit further than
"everything not substantiated in a double blind test (preferably
repeated) is magical and faith based"

Schumacher regularly tests out different motor and suspension tweaks in
his Ferrari. He gets back to the pits and says "this suspension mod is
clearly better"

What do the team do?
a) Dismiss this as magical and faith based and leave the car
unmodified, as it was worked out in theory on the drawing board?
b) Make a working assumption that Schumacher is right and use the mod
in the next race and then make a post-race evaluation?

c) Check his laptimes - if they are better, assume he was right....

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:37:22 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Andy Evans wrote:
The only person banging on about 'magical properties' in this group is
you....

Let's try an analogy to see if we can;t go a bit further than
"everything not substantiated in a double blind test (preferably
repeated) is magical and faith based"

Schumacher regularly tests out different motor and suspension tweaks in
his Ferrari. He gets back to the pits and says "this suspension mod is
clearly better"

What do the team do?
a) Dismiss this as magical and faith based and leave the car
unmodified, as it was worked out in theory on the drawing board?
b) Make a working assumption that Schumacher is right and use the mod
in the next race and then make a post-race evaluation?

c) Check his laptimes - if they are better, assume he was right....

He will tell them how it felt. The telemetry will tell them how it
went. He will put up with an awful lot of feeling bad for a tenth of a
second a lap. That was a poorly thought-through analogy, I'm afraid -
from your point of view anyway.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

c) Check his laptimes - if they are better, assume he was right....

But that assumption would be faith based, since you can't be sure what
to attribute the change to

He will tell them how it felt. The telemetry will tell them how it
went. He will put up with an awful lot of feeling bad for a tenth of a
second a lap. That was a poorly thought-through analogy, I'm afraid -
from your point of view anyway.

Why? I'm not remotely iinterested in magic - I'm interested in what
works in practice, even if you have to make a working assumption on the
basis of a mixture of factors including the opinion of someone who is
very familiar with the circumstances. This is used legally in the shape
of expert witnesses - another analogy for you to chew on! Andy.