DIY & AUTODIDACTISM

[svart-hvitt]

Why is it that DIY people think they make better gear (say speakers) than established pro speaker brands?

Why is it that autodidadacts think they know more about audio and science than audio professionals and scientists?

Internet is a fascinating place. Audio forums have different types and DIY people and experienced autodidacts are often held in high regard. A trait among DIY and autodidacts in audio is skepticism towards much of the mainstream audio science and producers of audio gear, even estsblished pro gear producers that publish regularly in academic forums and journals.

I guess this is both a rant and an observation. However, in my own area (which is not audio), I have never ever met a person - a DIY guy or an autodidact - who has had any substance! It takes years of practicing your professional skills to attain any weight, in my experience. In audio, it’s as if DIY and autodidacts believe audio professionals and scientists are the lightweights. Is this special for audio?

So I wondered: Is it common that a DIY or an autodidact has contributed to the accumulation of audio science? I mean, if your ideas represent «truth» but are still not represented in science, you should have good chances to initiate a paradigm shift or get your ideas published in impact journals of high esteem? Or you should be able to produce gear or a patent that is superior to what’s in the market today.

Rant over

Still, maybe worth a discussion?

 

[Cosmik]

Why is it that DIY people think they make better gear (say speakers) than established pro speaker brands?

Why is it that autodidadacts think they know more about audio and science than audio professionals and scientists?

Internet is a fascinating place. Audio forums have different types and DIY people and experienced autodidacts are often held in high regard. A trait among DIY and autodidacts in audio is skepticism towards much of the mainstream audio science and producers of audio gear, even estsblished pro gear producers that publish regularly in academic forums and journals.

I guess this is both a rant and an observation. However, in my own area (which is not audio), I have never ever met a person - a DIY guy or an autodidact - who has had any substance! It takes years of practicing your professional skills to attain any weight, in my experience. In audio, it’s as if DIY and autodidacts believe audio professionals and scientists are the lightweights. Is this special for audio?

So I wondered: Is it common that a DIY or an autodidact has contributed to the accumulation of audio science? I mean, if your ideas represent «truth» but are still not represented in science, you should have good chances to initiate a paradigm shift or get your ideas published in impact journals of high esteem? Or you should be able to produce gear or a patent that is superior to what’s in the market today.

Rant over

Still, maybe worth a discussion?

First thing that springs to mind: there is no formal academic training that ties sound quality to cable quality, say. There is no science anywhere that can confirm that vinyl sounds better than digital or that valves enhance sound. No one can teach you about these things because they are not real. You cannot get a qualification in them. But - due to the power of imagination - they are regarded as 'high end' gospel among audiophiles. Therefore, *only* the self-taught amateur or overblown garage tinkerer can occupy the position of high end audio guru.

 

[maverickronin]

Why is it that DIY people think they make better gear (say speakers) than established pro speaker brands?

Why is it that autodidadacts think they know more about audio and science than audio professionals and scientists?

Well with transducers I think it's easy to see way. Those are the most subjective part of the audio chain so why not make something that matches your tastes?

I mod my headphones different damping schemes, pads, etc, measure them with a DIY flat plate coupler and a Dayton measurement mic, and have made measurable and audible improvements.

As far as the electronics go, DIY is something you should do because you think it's fun or because you like to customize everything.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think it depends somewhat on how you define autodidact. Up until relatively recently, I believe that a lot of industry people were not graduates in any relevant field, but rather taught themselves and/or were mentored going up through the industry. Tom Danley is a good example of a non-college educated person who taught himself and learnt on the job and who has contributed hugely to the field (unless I’m mistaken about his educational background). He also contributes a lot to the online DIY community.

EDIT: I'm not justifying the suspicion of accepted science among large parts of the DIY community btw. That's just unjustifiable.

But I am observing that the line between professional and amateur is (or at least was) very blurry in this field as many of the occupations were not fed from specific university degrees and there was a culture of on-the-job learning and knowledge passed down within organisations etc. So it's not really comparable to many other engineering fields or other professions generally.

 

[Cosmik]

Another factor: audio is very simple - and audio projects used to feature in practically every electronics magazine. Building an amplifier that works is easy. Speakers are, in essence, just a bit of rough carpentry. And yet audio equipment is regarded in awe by those who have the hi-fi bug. They are as turned on by the hardware as by the sound - which, for an amp and passive speakers, is always going to be much of a muchness.

The amateur can knock something together that his peers cannot distinguish from professional equipment. The amateur experiences a light bulb moment that never goes away.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Another factor: audio is very simple - and audio projects used to feature in practically every electronics magazine. Building an amplifier that works is easy. Speakers are, in essence, just a bit of rough carpentry. And yet audio equipment is regarded in awe by those who have the hi-fi bug. They are as turned on by the hardware as by the sound - which, for an amp and passive speakers, is always going to be much of a muchness.

The amateur can knock something together that his peers cannot distinguish from professional equipment. The amateur experiences a light bulb moment that never goes away.

Agree with everything, except the idea that passive speakers are "much of a muchness" - there are absolutely huge variations between different models of passive speakers.

 

[Cosmik]

On the other hand... who is to say that the amateur's experience is worth less than the professional's? Real professionals spend most of their time ensuring that their equipment doesn't die when abused. The amateur needn't worry about that, so maybe gets to spend more time than the professional on the pure essence of audio.

 

[Cosmik]

Final point for now: if audio is such a minority interest that big corporations don't do anything purist, and boutique companies are pretty much amateurs themselves, then the amateur really can be as good/experienced as 'the professionals'.

 

[Cosmik]

I'm not justifying the suspicion of accepted science among large parts of the DIY community btw. That's just unjustifiable.

Without wanting to get into the science debate again, we might ask what contribution science can make to the question, say, of whether dipole speakers are the future. These speakers are typical of the sort of obsession that some audio amateurs get drawn into.

As far as I am aware, dipole speakers are strictly a boutique/DIY configuration. What they *do* can be described and measured. How they sound is dependent on (a) large doses of imagination and bias, (b) room, (c) placement, (d) type of recording, type of music, etc. I don't think science can actually contribute anything useful there, so if a dipole enthusiast is suspicious of science, I don't really blame them.

I am suspicious of dipoles primarily because of what they *do*, secondarily how they sound (influenced by bias, etc.), and hardly at all because of science.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think it depends somewhat on how you define autodidact. Up until relatively recently, I believe that a lot of industry people were not graduates in any relevant field, but rather taught themselves and/or were mentored going up through the industry. Tom Danley is a good example of a non-college educated person who taught himself and learnt on the job and who has contributed hugely to the field (unless I’m mistaken about his educational background). He also contributes a lot to the online DIY community.

EDIT: I'm not justifying the suspicion of accepted science among large parts of the DIY community btw. That's just unjustifiable.

But I am observing that the line between professional and amateur is (or at least was) very blurry in this field as many of the occupations were not fed from specific university degrees and there was a culture of on-the-job learning and knowledge passed down within organisations etc. So it's not really comparable to many other engineering fields or other professions generally.

Ok, but I don’t think Danley is a good example (there are always rare examples) as he publishes frequently in AES settings

We need to control the discussion for the rare exceptions; if not exceptions are the rule in audio



Thumbs up for Danley, BTW.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Final point for now: if audio is such a minority interest that big corporations don't do anything purist, and boutique companies are pretty much amateurs themselves, then the amateur really can be as good/experienced as 'the professionals'.

Ok, but of audio is so simple, then why do we need audio science? Of course, we always need common sense and skills, but do we need audio science if the DIY and autodidact can compete with the trained professional and scientist?

 

[SIY]

Why is it that DIY people think they make better gear (say speakers) than established pro speaker brands?

Fewer constraints when you're doing a one (or two) off. MANY fewer constraints!

 

[andreasmaaan]

Ok, but I don’t think Danley is a good example (there are always rare examples) as he publishes frequently in AES settings

We need to control the discussion for the rare exceptions; if not exceptions are the rule in audio



Thumbs up for Danley, BTW.

Yeh, totally agree about Danley's immense abilities.

But I think the fact that he is a major AES contributor and holds important patents in loudspeaker design indicates the fuzziness of the line between professional and autodidact (both of which he apparently is).

Moreover, I'm not sure this is so exceptional in Danley's generation of speaker designers. I suspect that in this field, a small but significant number of people (including those who have published in AES) are not university educated, or at least not in the areas of their present expertise.

This is obviously far less applicable (if at all) in fields like DSP or electrical engineering, but I do think it holds for speaker design.

Of course, it's very hard to quantify this statement and I won't pretend that I can Danley was just one obvious example that came to mind.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Fewer constraints when you're doing a one (or two) off. MANY fewer constraints!

You have a point, sure.

But when I look at products that are made on the assembly line and compare them with «tailor made», it often strikes me that the tailor made is of poorer quality, both in practical use and longevity wise. The same goes for doctors: A doctor who makes 10 surgeries per week or month has a higher faile rate than the dentist who has 10 patients per day.

Practice is of so great importance, and if you only make one...you’re not really skilled.

 

[SIY]

Just having constraints removed does not mean you'll take effective advantage of that design freedom.

edit: full disclosure- I have exactly zero formal education in engineering, entirely self-taught. So I might have a certain prejudice.

 

[Cosmik]

Ok, but of audio is so simple, then why do we need audio science?

We have audio science, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we need it, or that it contributes anything new or useful at this stage.

Of course, we always need common sense and skills, but do we need audio science if the DIY and autodidact can compete with the trained professional and scientist?

It may be that audio is a solved problem and amateurs and professionals both have access to the necessary knowledge. The professionals may now just be creating variations for commercial reasons. The amateur is being the purist - and in his world a 8'x3'x2' box is acceptable, and this makes his contribution of genuine interest to a small group of audio purists.

I think the mistake is to assume that audio is on a par with rocket science in terms of its complexity; to assume that the role of the audio professional is to push the scientific envelope - when it's really just to make a box that doesn't break when playing at high volume in high temperatures, or to create an acceptable sound for the audience at a concert.

The only reason that intelligent, rational people assume that audio is complicated is because they can't help but be persuaded that the 'subjectivists' vivid imaginary experiences might be real. They then spend the rest of their professional or amateur time trying to disprove the subjectivists' experiences with (by definition) inconclusive science, instead of just dismissing the subjectivists' experiences as the figments they rationally know they are.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Just having constraints removed does not mean you'll take effective advantage of that design freedom.

edit: full disclosure- I have exactly zero formal education in engineering, entirely self-taught. So I might have a certain prejudice.

Full disclosure 2: I have no formal training in speaker design despite considering myself very good at it

 

[andreasmaaan]

We have audio science, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we need it, or that it contributes anything new or useful at this stage.

It may be that audio is a solved problem and amateurs and professionals both have access to the necessary knowledge. The professionals may now just be creating variations for commercial reasons. The amateur is being the purist - and in his world a 8'x3'x2' box is acceptable, and this makes his contribution of genuine interest to a small group of audio purists.

I think the mistake is to assume that audio is on a par with rocket science in terms of its complexity; to assume that the role of the audio professional is to push the scientific envelope - when it's really just to make a box that doesn't break when playing at high volume in high temperatures, or to create an acceptable sound for the audience at a concert.

The only reason that intelligent, rational people assume that audio is complicated is because they can't help but be persuaded that the 'subjectivists' vivid imaginary experiences might be real. They then spend the rest of their professional or amateur time trying to disprove the subjectivists' experiences with (by definition) inconclusive science, instead of just dismissing the subjectivists' experiences as the figments they rationally know they are.

Again, agree for the most part (most notably, it seems that transparent DA conversion and amplification are solved problems). But I think there are still many aspects of audio that are in need of further tech advancement, so cannot agree with you that it is a solved problem generally. Here are some examples of what I hope for:

• transducers that are audibly transparent at significantly high SPLs
• transducers that cover a wider (or even the full) audible range with similarly negligible distortion
• multiple speaker playback formats that better convey the acoustics of a recording venue in a wide variety of listening rooms

The first two of the above are largely dependant on the development of better materials, while the last is an area where much promising new work is currently being done. And science does and is likely to play a crucial role in all three (and more), for example in developing better transducer materials and in evaluating and refining playback formats.

 

[pkane]

So I wondered: Is it common that a DIY or an autodidact has contributed to the accumulation of audio science? I mean, if your ideas represent «truth» but are still not represented in science, you should have good chances to initiate a paradigm shift or get your ideas published in impact journals of high esteem?

Not just for audio, but here's a list that makes an interesting counterpoint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

 

[Cosmik]

• transducers that cover a wider (or even the full) audible range with similarly negligible distortion

I'm not quite sure what the motivation is for that one. Sure, we need systems that are transparent, but the idea of the transducer itself being capable of working over a wide range is, I would say, an audiophile 'trope', giving us the Manger transducer - which I think may not be selling as well as the Kii Three.