Leaderboard

I've been clean for a tad over 5 years. Quit the booze and the drugs in 2012ish and cigs late 2014. Goa trance alone is enough to get me high

Hi all! This is kind of off topic, but it's also kind of on topic, but most important, this could be a major breakthrough so please contribute if you can afford: Click here if you want to contribute or if you want to know more: https://capstone.maps.org/ And listen to Tim Ferris' interview with Rick Doblin. The Tim Ferris podcast is available at Spotify, among others.

What would you buy, and why? (This seems like a natural topic progression from that other topic regarding old tools and the quality they still impart) Id buy alot of stuff thats for sure.. First and foremost Id get the JD-800. Or maybe the 990 cause its cheaper, and then get a controller for it. It sounds very particular and the main lead from Spiritual Healing was done in that thing, and thats probably the best lead sound ive ever heard. And theres just no way of getting the same Tonal qualites in any other synth; at least not currently avaliable. The Roland D-50 would probably come closest to the same tone; as the JD-800 had waveforms based off of the D-50. Id also wanna get the JP8000 cause it sounds so fresh and clean, very digital but very nice. And it has a wonderful arpeggiator/sequencer. Id say its either Virus, JP8000 or Nord lead, and Id pick the JP. Then Ill get the Fairchild 670 compressor from the 50s. That thing sounds so freaking good, its a tube compressor thats built like a tank (and looks like a tank, aswell). You just cant miss with that thing. Its even got M/S compression; something that staggers me they did all the way back then. And finally Id buy the API 2500 compressor. Also a beast. Its a VCA similar to the SSL bus compressor; but it has much more control AND a sidechain HPF. So for that extra sub-punchiness. Then Id probably be set, the rest Ill make do with software =) Total cost; roughly: €56.800 Fairchild 670: €45.000 API 2500: €3000 JP-8000: €7500 JD-800: €1300

If I had unlimtied funds I'd buy a separate room for a studio, at least 20 square meters, and invest few grands into a proper acoustic treatment and a good sub matching my monitors. Also a UAD card with full plugin package. Synth-wise I'd probably buy Waldorf Quantum and Dave Smith OB-6. But most likely I would still use mostly software synths for actual tracks

Alcohol is a bitch to kick, but no drugs now for almost 2 years. I dont count cannabis into that category though Psytrance still is great both with and without the enhanced mindstate. Which in the long run is not enhanced at all anymore

Only took about 400-500 hours (probably more) and 6 months but I think the last track is ready now. Time for mastering... I got a great cover art ready as well!

Fair enough, I'll bite. What you posted is a pop science article and it aptly demonstrates what I mentioned earlier. For the sake of discussion, pop science has no peer review that's worth mentioning. Among the references are actual researches with their own goals and conclusions - these are certainly peer reviewed. As for the article A few excerpts. Vegetarians generally consume as much iron as, or slightly more than, omnivores. Said to be the concluded from [16]. Let's see [16], then. The purpose of [16] is clearly stated in their abstract - the study of bioavailability of iron and what controls (or inhibits) absorbtion - groups of Dutch people seem to be tested. [16] is obviously being quoted out of context for they make no such claim. There is no way of knowing, in general, that either one consumes more iron than the other. Rather, it is important, that either diet could provide sufficient amount of iron. The article poses an empty statement to meet some necessary word count or some such. ------------------------- Many scientists are calling for a substantial reduction of livestock products in the diet of humans as a major way to reverse climate change. Wrong. The following conclusion is arrived at in [107]. Conclusions Consuming a more plant-based diet could to an extent alleviate the negative environmental impacts related to food production. As a method to feed ourselves more sustainably, behavioural adjustments appear to be a very important tool. They make no certain claims, rather suggest that this is worth investigating and I agree, but this does not imply what was said in the article. ------------------------- I also found this gem In addition, beef production generates considerably more manure waste than from any other animal food production. This is said to be [108], which contains political statements in its conclusion. A big nono, so we'll regard that as a tongue-in-cheek essay. As for manure itself, it is a fertiliser Around here, that's how seasonal agriculture functions. The land is fertilised with captured manure. Live stock is as essential to plant life as it is to live stock. ------------------------- So, by now I think we get the picture. It is not about which diet is 'better', rather which diets are suitable for which people. As a prevalent characteristic of many references of the article - the goals of those works are to study the effects of either diet and to find balance. As an extreme example there is a certain condition that may cause (near) paralysis for people on a daily basis. Consuming more meat products significantly alleviates the condition (this is a recent discovery by G. Pilz based on relevant theory, he recently gave a talk in our university and as he himself suffers from this near paralysis condition, he applied the theory to narrow down his diet very quickly to determine which products he should discard). We should distinguish between veganism and veganism*. The latter is a political crusade, while the former is merely another way of life. I know people who have tried vegan diets for months only to end up more in despair and I also know people who have no problems with having only plant foods. Lots of interesting research is carried out on the subject of diets, but the crusaders are incorrectly quoting these discoveries. This is no surprise, though, while the meat eaters don't have their clips of loons with flamethrowers burning down bushes of berries, plenty of pop science has been written against vegan diets. It is not so well-known simply because it's not the stance promoted by the propaganda machine. Don't become a crusader, please. If your diet works for you, then all is well. As long as you are honest with yourself, you shouldn't get into health trouble. Now, I need me a lamb leg, baked potatoes, some tomato salad and lots of gravy. Have fun