And pinkmouse, there's nothing wrong in my arguments. I put on the subjectivist specs. I didn't play the objectivists' advocate. My main point is that we live in the mechanistic world. The romantic world, while a counter, has never been an equal. It has always been the "other." And whenever you question the mechanistic world, you have to defend yourself, like I did in my previous post. You should never need to defend yourself to anyone.
I'm not a subjectivist in the sense we use the word. But I do not believe objectivity is possible. I can call myself king of Sweden, but it won't make me so.
So we have this weird phenomenon where people feel they have to justify their preference for, say, tubes by saying, "Subjectively I prefer tubes." What does that mean? That they objectively dislike tubes? The mountain came to Mohammed.
I guess a better word than subjectivity in this case would be interpretation, which the positivists call a sin. I call it a condition for life. But I also believe in materialism (all cultures are material) and technological determinism, which should put me square in the middle of the mechanistic world.
I have very few convictions other than the faith in the individual. But though "greater good" (e.g. objectivism, rationalism) scares me, the alternative does too. The latter sentence is kind of stupid. The alternative has never been an alternative.
I'm not a subjectivist in the sense we use the word. But I do not believe objectivity is possible. I can call myself king of Sweden, but it won't make me so.
So we have this weird phenomenon where people feel they have to justify their preference for, say, tubes by saying, "Subjectively I prefer tubes." What does that mean? That they objectively dislike tubes? The mountain came to Mohammed.
I guess a better word than subjectivity in this case would be interpretation, which the positivists call a sin. I call it a condition for life. But I also believe in materialism (all cultures are material) and technological determinism, which should put me square in the middle of the mechanistic world.
I have very few convictions other than the faith in the individual. But though "greater good" (e.g. objectivism, rationalism) scares me, the alternative does too. The latter sentence is kind of stupid. The alternative has never been an alternative.
Re: Re: The Thread that Would Not Die
I've had a few misfires, like a MOSFET design that sounded horrible. In that case, I was able to salvage the MOSFETs for later use as an induction coil break. Salvage what you can, try to figure out what went wrong, and don't do that again.
Sometimes the only "magic bullet" is the one you use when you take it out back and put it out of its misery.
7V said:
...and if it doesn't, you can always add a magic bullet.
I'll get my coat.
Steve
I've had a few misfires, like a MOSFET design that sounded horrible. In that case, I was able to salvage the MOSFETs for later use as an induction coil break. Salvage what you can, try to figure out what went wrong, and don't do that again.
Sometimes the only "magic bullet" is the one you use when you take it out back and put it out of its misery.
In my humble opinion, a bottle of single malt applied internally is the single best system tweek Iv'e ever come across. Want your Dynaco to sound like a Conrad Johnson?Try Talisker! A bottle of 18yr old Obans never fails to cause my creaky old Spica tc-60s to sing like Martin logans(If I squint my ears)! They don't call the audio arts Psycoacoustics for nothing and if a 59dollar dram of supergoo diddles your happy stick,go for it! This is a hobby and all this tweakery is part of the fun! I'll stick to scotch however. Cheers!
Banned
Joined 2002
So, I made some shunt mode passive PREAMPS with 4.7K 2W allen bradley series resistors and a 10K carbon pots. The resistors sound kind of klanky and disjointed, but with a lot of separation between instruments going from value (in) to tolerance (out), and really nice and smooth, with an integrated, holistic kind of sound going from tolerance (in) to value (out). The latter sounds a lot better, imo.
The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a traveling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling fake medicines with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence. To increase sales, an accomplice in the crowd (a shill) would often attest to the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. The "doctor" would leave town before his customers realized they had been cheated.[2] This practice is also called grifting and its practitioners are called grifters.
The composition of snake oil medicines varies markedly among products.
Stanley's snake oil — produced by Clark Stanley, the "Rattlesnake King" — was tested by the United States government in 1917. It was found to contain[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
The composition of snake oil medicines varies markedly among products.
Stanley's snake oil — produced by Clark Stanley, the "Rattlesnake King" — was tested by the United States government in 1917. It was found to contain[3]
- mineral oil
- 1% fatty oil (presumed to be beef fat)
- red pepper
- turpentine
- camphor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.