In Reply to: Re: I agree... posted by Lynn on January 9, 2007 at 18:55:46:
Certainly food for thought, and having read your post I believe I have a better understanding of what Ted Smith was getting at (below), at least I sense some similarity only the way you put it was much easier for me to comprehend; he's a lawyer I believe so perhaps the fact that his post at least reads like English is a huge accomplishment! LOLAnyway, getting back to the topic, please see my response to Ted re: fast switching. Now as to the question of first instincts, over analysing, stressing out, etc. etc., yes I agree those are all real problems. If dealing with such things in a test setting, where a decision is generally mandatory (so as to minimally not waste a trial if nothing else) the process can quickly turn from fun to mental anguish and waste of time.
At home however one can just say "F' this, I had enough" scrap the session and give the old ticker a break, perhaps have another go the following day... of course such testing likely isn't blind, just you and the gear typically, but that's not a big issue with me.
Anyway I love the way my system sounds and I'm firmly convinced it has benefited from more than a few pain in the arse comparison sessions. On the other hand I must admit I'm a bit of a nut who generally enjoys comparing, I like to challenge myself... the fact that some think that, in lieu of certain conditions/methodologies/whatever, that I really just involved in an intricate processs of fooling myself means little to me ultimately.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I agree... - bjh 20:24:57 01/09/07 (2)
- Who's a lawyer? - Ted Smith 20:29:33 01/09/07 (1)
- Doh! Sorry bout that... where *do* I get my ideas? :( nt - bjh 20:31:28 01/09/07 (0)