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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Personality wise, the driving force in this early stage will be
curiosity, and many ideas will be worked on, most being rejected at
some point during the empirical testing stage. It is essential that any
ideas are considered on their own merits, and not on the say-so of
others or past historical usage, since the purpose is innovation and
the selection of ideas is radical rather than conservative. The
selection of ideas in the creative process will almost by definition be
made by the creative himself or herself, otherwise it would not be a
creative process. So the usefullness of moralistic directions do do
"this" or "that" because one "should" will be of little final
consequence, though such practical information will be useful in the
stage of prototyping and testing.
In terms of the personalities of creatives, we should expect
difficulties with the establishment and in particular conflict with
"teachers" or similar figures (Getzels and Jackson 1962), independence
of ideas, stubborness, tolerance of ambiguity and absurdity,
symbolistic linking of ideas and divergent thinking (though convergent
thinking is important to the integreation of ideas in the final
stages), competitiveness, abundant imagination, and of course
non-conformity. This is not an a-la-carte list - you get the creative,
warts and all. No doubt the champage socialists of this world would
prefer a Van Gogh on the wall of their salle de sejour rather than in
the kitchen drinking pastis and cutting his ear off, but that's
creatives for you.

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. 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. 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.

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

I can't speak for others (Jim)

Well, that's a step in the right direction.

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.

You can't stop speaking for others even if you try can you?

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), I
lecture at university level in the psychology of media, creativity arts
and performence and I also publish books. 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.

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.

"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.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Silly boy, they look at a stopwatch. In racing, lap times rule - the rest
is just opinion that is used in the hope that lap times can be improved.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?


In the past, this may have been the case, but in the modern world of F1, I
would seriously doubt that any " back of a fag packet " mods are carried out
on the car without exhaustive computer modelling first. If you understand
F1, you will know anyway, that every engine and general car parameter that
you can imagine, are continuously streamed back to the drivers pit crew by
radio, and continuously evaluated by computer. Thus, any tweaks that have
been done because the computer model said that they were worth a try, are
immediately evaluated in practice. No faith. No magic ...

Arfa

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The only person banging on about 'magical properties' in this group is
you....

Then perhaps you'd use universally accepted technical terms when you next
describe the sound of your latest speaker/amplifier? Rather than those
more usually written by Barbara Cartland?

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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