Where is the MAGIC ;)

[Eb7+9]

blindly following "good" design rules won't help you find your way outside the box ... one way of achieving outstanding sonic results involves questioning what the average peep does, mainly things done by rote // and yes, there are ways of making things sound that much better ... one way of figuring that out, of course, comes by comparing actual products that have made their mark that way, against other products that just sound meh - and deriving design comparisons ... otherwise, I can see having to depend on raw luck // ... if you're interested in this look around, there are DIY kits and forum resources that address this kind of stuff

[Eddododo]

Really love that post

[R.G.]

It is very seductive to believe that an outsider with no formal training can, with insight, courage and pluck, come to amazing results that the stodgy establishment would never come to. Every teenager wants to believe that they, too, will someday discover that they have incredible hidden superpowers. That's probably OK if you don't make really big bets on the outcomes. 

While doing something new and different is always valuable, to know if you're doing something new, you have to know what has been done before. That just keeps getting harder. And being outside the box is only good if the reason that you're in the box was either bad or has been superceded. There is an analogy to be made that you may not have been in a box, you may have been in a frying pan.  It has also become stylish to think that simply because something matches mainstream science, then it MUST be wrong.
See:
http://thisisindexed.com/2011/04/you-cant-use-logic-against-belief/

I really like the following, shamelessly copied from one of my favorite websites "Atomic Rockets".

From Stardestroyer.Net by Michael Wong.
    Among the ranks of Star Trek fandom, there seem to be a lot of people with little or no technical background, who think that they can take a "shortcut" to advanced scientific knowledge by skipping over the usual years of hard work in university, and simply reading some books on quantum mechanics. I've gotten dozens of E-mail messages such as the following:

    "You shouldn't discount the opinions of people just because they have no background. I've done a lot of independent reading, including all of the Stephen Hawking books, the Feynman books, and many other books on advanced particle physics and quantum mechanics. I dare say I probably have better knowledge of these subjects than you do, so you should watch your mouth before you go putting down my knowledge."

    This argument has four major weaknesses, as I see them:

    1. Strawman attack: It's a strawman attack because I don't automatically ignore everything that comes from untrained people. If a layperson makes an argument which is not scientifically invalid, I'm perfectly willing to listen. But if a layperson makes claims about science which I know to be incorrect, I will tell him.

    2. How hard did he really work? What sounds more difficult? Reading some science books in your spare time, or studying science or engineering for 5 days a week, every week, for years? What's more difficult? Reading a handful of books for personal enlightenment, or reading textbooks and papers because you have to take grueling three hour long exams and submit a series of fifty page laboratory reports? What's more difficult? Skipping over the boring parts and jumping right to conclusions or abstracts, or knowing that the boring parts are the parts on which you will be tested? I think it's rather arrogant of these people to believe that their intelligence is so immense that they can skim through a handful of books and instantly gain the equivalent of many years of education.

    3. Trying to run before you learn to walk: Comprehension of advanced scientific concepts requires comprehension of the basics. People without a grasp of the basics (and no, high school does not give you a grasp of the basics) tend to misinterpret complex material. The result of this ignorance is that they can read "The Physics of Star Trek" and conclude that Treknology is realistic, or they can read "A Matter of Time" and conclude that conservation of energy has been rendered obsolete.

    4. Proof: When someone gets a university degree, there is a public record to prove that he has done the work that he claims to have done. But what about our "independent study" opponent? How do we know he's telling the truth about all of that hard work he claims to have done? How do we know his idea of "research" isn't just casual web-surfing and bookstore browsing? When someone gets a university degree, there is a public record to prove that not only did he do the work, but he was tested and found competent. But what about our "independent study" opponent? How do we know that he understood any of what he was reading? No one forced him to write reports, submit theses, perform experiments, or take exams, did they?

    I'm not trying to claim that everything I say must be correct simply because I have a degree. However, I have studied certain subjects at length, in a university environment where my comprehension of the material was tested. Therefore, if I make a statement about scientific or engineering concepts which were covered in my education, it is made on the basis of the fact that I studied those subjects at length, in much greater detail than one who has merely read a handful of science books (especially when those books are the type that contain no equations).

The clever amateur, or someone who is new and or poorly schooled may by luck or intuition discover a nugget.  Knowing that it's a nugget and not a chunk of iron pyrite is going to be a big deal in figuring out what to do with the nugget. 

The same clever amateur with some training may be DYNAMITE after he gets over certain learning humps.

Try things, experiment, record the successes and above all THINK about what worked and what didn't and WHY.