The underpinning is that a ’fact’ is a name, a moniker, a logic misnomer... for a highly predicable theory. But it remains theory.
The use of the word 'law' in science is also an attempt to put social and cultural group pressure on individuals to conform or be punished by the group. At least this is part of the traditional meaning of the use of the word law. Thus we can see the the word law remains as being in the world of human social/cultural structure and in the supposed world of logic, has zero place in the world of science.
So we can have the word law in the world of science, if we are looking to prosecute people and possibly kill, ostracize or beat them to death, in public, for 'violating' laws. Which, according to the tenants of science, is patently absurd and against the very fabric of science and what it is supposed to stand for.
But the word works very well in religion. Is science with laws -- a form of dogmatism?
Without man reality would be the same. Thus the laws of science man declares are facts. They are facts we discover about reality. In addition these facts have been proven. Follow?Don't turn into Juror #10 on me.
Yes, but it always remains that they are conditionally facts and that in reality, facts don’t exist. That facts are a human construct, an idea, like ’chair’, or numbers/math.
All existence is from a human point of view, in all analysis that ’we’ are aware of. It is entirely subjective and logic itself is a construct, like fact, law, chair, number, and so on. All inescapably relative, inescapably theoretical and of a subjective construction. Objectivity only existing in the pressured opinion and projection of the non self-aware, for the most part (some are mildly self aware). Objectivity is a child branch and construct of a subjective mind and reality. Objectivity, as far as we can tell, exists no-where else.
Same thing for local reality, and forests and trees. All of existence is subjective theory with high predictability, but inescapably theory and outside of fact, as facts don’t exist. It’s just a moniker for a relatively predictable observation by a subjective reality self- reflection.
It would be good for some to remember - or understand that for the first time. That the only fact we know, is that facts don’t exist. Paradox, like the wave particle quantum quandary. Predictable en-masse, spooky action at a distance, in the quantum underpinnings of that en-masse grouping.
Engineers are 'allowed' to have 'facts', so they can build things without resorting to the reality of theory and possibly building things that kill people. They require maximum stability and quality in their theory and it must be unchanging to allow for as perfect a predictability as is possible. That kind of mindset that desires facts and perfect things, tends to be drawn to the field of engineering.
However....no trained scientist worth a damn ever uses or deals with facts. But they will if they have to deal with the public, who live in the 'factual' world, or the world of emotionalized logic projections.
In physics as in all of science we have theories and we also have Laws. Laws cannot be broken except for Newton’s Laws of Motion in the extreme relativity case - they were broken more than 100 years ago. But there are many Laws of science like Boyles Law, electrical Laws like Ohm’s Law, that are more like facts, really, not theories. Black holes are 99% fact, 1% theory. There are many "facts" in science: the speed of light, the speed of sound, Avagadro’s number, the gas constant, Universal Constant, the equivalency of mass and energy (E=mc2). You don’t have to look too far to see a lot of facts.
The ones saying they can hear the difference, or the ones that confirm that there is a reason they can hear a difference?
I suspect those two groups are not the naysayers... because confirmation isn’t naysaying.
Best I can make out, theres only one naysayer on this thread so far...
>>>>Whoa! What?! Wow! There is an even bigger chasm than I realized between the naysayers and the proponents. Who are they? Well, one definition is someone who believes that directionality of fuses or wire isn’t the issue, that there’s no such thing as fuse or wire directionality per se and that it’s the fuse holder that causing all the directionality. 😀
The whole problem with quantum mechanics these days is that it’s gotten so you can’t find the line separating quantum physics from classical physics. It’s not really correct to say that quantum mechanics is relegated to the very small or minuscule. It’s a dichotomy that Schrodinger’s Cat presents: Can quantum mechanics affect things in the macro world? And does observing collapse the waveform? We have recently seen how the same *quantum superposition* that’s found in the Schrodinger’s Cat experiment was employed by the Chinese scientists in achieving the new world record for quantum teleportation. So, obviously great distances can be involved, although the particles involved were very small, in that case. Unlike old school quantum mechanics view that relegated phenomena to very small distances, e.g., quantum confinement in nanoscale dimensions, I.e., deBroglie wavelength. Is it classical physics? Or is it quantum mechanics? You decide.
Geoffkait: why on Earth would they have even had someone test fuses if not to prove - or at least show evidence - that fuses in general are directional and that HiFi Tuning fuses exhibited better measured characteristics in terms of conductivity than other high end fuses of that time period as well as stock fuses? HiFi Tuning believes in fuse and wire directionality.
A much simpler answer is that they want your money and the way they are getting it is by making gold-plated fuses. The marketing rhetoric is of course to separate them from the much less expensive gold plated fuses used in cars.
Now, you’re just being silly. If you have a better mousetrap why not advertise it? It’s the difference between reality and hyperbole. Nothing more than that. Naysayers always demand tests and harrumph, harrumph. Here’s someone who actually provided tests - the only ones as far as I can tell - and still they moan and demand and grouse. 😛
You write, "The reality, the only reality that the results propose, is: objectivity is a fabrication, a projection... of a fundamental reality which is entirely subjective and entangled. That we only posses probability, and theory, and not fact. That 'Fact' cannot exist."
Not so, not at all. The headline reads, "Probability that the QUANTUM world obeys local realism is less than one in a billion, experiment shows."
Don't break out the theramins just yet, Teo.
In the first place, probability is not the same as subjectivity. To see this, try betting on a roll of dice, and see how subjective the results are to the other players.
Deterministic is the antonym of probabilistic. Not objective.
Secondly, while it is true that there are no facts without theories, that is because theories are required to interpret observations. These interpretations may be revised in the light of new data and new theory, but that is not on the level of observation. Thus we can correlate flying saucer sightings and Virgin Mary sightings across the ages. The underlying observations are interpreted according to the dominant theory.
Thirdly, there is a fundamental principle of physics, that of correspondence. That is, a new theory has to agree with old theory within a restricted realm, usually one of precision or scale. In the case of quantum theory, which describes the very very small, quantum theory must correspond to classical physics in the realm of the not so small. Thus in the world which is remotely accessible to humans, the two theories must give the same results, and they do.
why on Earth would they have even had someone test fuses if not to
prove - or at least show evidence - that fuses in general are
directional and that HiFi Tuning fuses exhibited better measured
characteristics in terms of conductivity than other high end fuses of
that time period as well as stock fuses? HiFi Tuning believes in fuse
and wire directionality.
A much simpler answer is that they want your money and the way they are getting it is by making gold-plated fuses. The marketing rhetoric is of course to separate them from the much less expensive gold plated fuses used in cars.
almarg Geoffkait 7-20-2017 Of course, the real interesting thing in the fuse measurements was that listening tests correlated to measurements, i.e., the best sounding directional was ALWAYS the direction with least resistance.
A question: Where do you see that?
The only reference to listening tests I see in the HiFi Tuning paper is the following statement, which has nothing to do with directionality: For DC applications it ́s recommended to use the solder type fuse or the cryogenically treated fuses from HiFi-Tuning Germany. The drop in resistance up to the factor of 8 is clearly measurable and also could be detected in listening test. Regards, -- Al
>>>>>Al, that’s a good question, but why on Earth would they have even had someone test fuses if not to prove - or at least show evidence - that fuses in general are directional and that HiFi Tuning fuses exhibited better measured characteristics in terms of conductivity than other high end fuses of that time period as well as stock fuses? HiFi Tuning believes in fuse and wire directionality. That’s why they mark their fuses with that diode symbol, so the user can experiment and find out which direction sounds best. So, of course HiFi Tuning obviously believes that the measured data supports their position. Otherwise they would not have published the data. And that the fuse direction that exhibits the lower value for resistance (I.e., higher conductivity) would be the best sounding direction. In their conclusion, they state,
"The measurements done so far showed some measurable differences between fuse, but didn ́t explain completely the sonic differences between fuses."
That statement shows they believe the directionality measurements correlate with sonic differences (but do not necessarily explain the large sonic differences they heard). As I’ve already indicated many times, there are other variables involved with fuse sonics, fuse directionality is not the only variable. No one ever suggested directionality was the only or even primary variable. One need look no further than the design of many modern aftermarket fuses such as Audio Magic Beeswax fuse and Synergistic Research Black (I.e, Graphene) fuse to see that other factors are involved and addressed, and HiFi Tuning gold and silver fuses and cryo’d fuses obviously address other factors, too.
The next part of the problem..... is that it is now shown what the philosophical origins of objective science have said and knew as being correct..from the very beginnings of the concept of logic: that objectivity cannot exist - that objectified isolated realism, local or distant, is not possible.
The reality, the only reality that the results propose, is: objectivity is a fabrication, a projection... of a fundamental reality which is entirely subjective and entangled. That we only posses probability, and theory, and not fact. That 'Fact' cannot exist.
And that’s just the upper lip of the rabbit hole......
Geoffkait 7-20-2017
Of course, the real interesting thing in the fuse measurements was that
listening tests correlated to measurements, i.e., the best sounding
directional was ALWAYS the direction with least resistance.
A question: Where do you see that?
The only reference to listening tests I see in the HiFi Tuning paper is the following statement, which has nothing to do with directionality:
For DC applications it ́s recommended to use the solder type fuse or the cryogenically treated fuses from HiFi-Tuning Germany. The drop in resistance up to the factor of 8 is clearly measurable and also could be detected in listening test.
Unfortunately, the numbers you cite don’t - by themselves support - HiFi Tuning’s contention in their Interpretation of Measurements section that the differences are around 5%, or in the range of 5%, whatever. Those 4 relatively high numbers are OUTLIERS and can be thrown out. In fact, HIFI TUNING cautions AGAINST using glass fuses, IIRC. Most differences on the data sheets are, by far, an order of magnitude lower than 5%. End of argument. It should also be pointed out we ALREADY KNOW that directionality is only ONE VARIABLE involved with fuses sounding the way they do. Which is why folks often report aftermarket fuses sounding better than stock fuses right away, even when NOT installed in the right direction. Shall we review all the fuse variables?
Of course, the real interesting thing in the fuse measurements was that listening tests correlated to measurements, i.e., the best sounding directional was ALWAYS the direction with least resistance. It’s NOT random. Also note fuse holders were NOT used in the fuse measurements per se but their resistance measurements appears separately. So, we can dispense with the fuse holder argument.
This is all starting to look like a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Geoffkait 7-19-2017 However, there is no difference in the data sheets for resistance more than about 0.5%. Thus, your interpretation makes no sense, even allowing for language differences. You could be pulling my leg. Is this a lawyer trick? 😀
I would respectfully point out that the four numbers I clearly cited in my previous post, namely 4.6%, 3.8%, 4.4%, and 3.6%, are all "more than about 0.5%."
zavato OP To the people here on Audiogon that have seen me post from time to time over the years please accept my apologies. I’m really not a sh*t stirrer. I never intended or expected or dreamed that this thread would ignite passions the way it has. I’m sorry! To the folks that have had strokes or heart attacks because of this thread, please go listen to some chill music. To the people who have put up reasoned posts, I suggest walk away and whistle, don’t worry, look at the bright side of life. To those on the sidelines, hopefully you won’t need to buy anymore popcorn.
Al, if they had wished to say what you’re assuming they were saying, they would simply have said, in the range 0-5%. That’s a range. One number is not a range. However, there is no difference in the data sheets for resistance more than about 0.5%. Thus, your interpretation makes no sense, even allowing for language differences. You could be pulling my leg. Is this a lawyer trick? 😀
To the people here on Audiogon that have seen me post from time to time over the years please accept my apologies. I'm really not a sh*t stirrer. I never intended or expected or dreamed that this thread would ignite passions the way it has. I'm sorry! To the folks that have had strokes or heart attacks because of this thread, please go listen to some chill music. To the people who have put up reasoned posts, I suggest walk away and whistle, don't worry, look at the bright side of life. To those on the sidelines, hopefully you won't need to buy anymore popcorn.
Geoffkait 7-19-2017 ... as I already pointed out, ALL measured differences were about an order of magnitude less than 5%. NONE were anywhere near 5% so YOUR INTERPRETATION MAKES NO SENSE. If things were as you say then they could have said "in the range of of 10%%, fortifying their argument. Apparently I was correct, you never read the HiFi Tuning data sheets carefully.
Apparently you don’t read my posts very carefully. I have made the following statement multiple times in this thread (the statement even appearing in what you’ve quoted in your post just above), and also in other fuse-related threads in which you’ve participated:
In fact, all or nearly all of the directional differences in resistance were vastly smaller than 5%, with the exception of the "standard glass fuse."
The paper provides direction-related resistance measurements for two "standard glass fuses," which differ for the two directions by approximately 4.6% and 3.8%, if calculated by dividing the difference between the two numbers by the lower of the two numbers, or by approximately 4.4% and 3.6% if calculated by dividing the difference between the two numbers by the higher of the two numbers. None of those numbers, of course, are an order of magnitude less than 5%.
Regarding the meaning of "in the range of 5%," yes, in casual conversation among most Americans that would be equivalent to saying "generally around 5%," or "in the area of 5%." However given especially that the paper was presumably written by a German, and by someone for whom English is presumably not his or her first language, without particular knowledge of German linguistics it would be presumptuous to exclude the possibility that "in the range of 5%" might have instead been intended to mean the same thing as "within the range of 5%." Which all of the numbers were, of course, and consequently that interpretation would make their statement accurate. And note that I said that their statement was "arguably accurate," the word "arguably" having been intentionally chosen to leave open the possibility that the statement could be interpreted in ways that would make it inaccurate.
What’s bizarre, funny and ironic all at the same time is that you would pick an argument on this point since, you know, it kind of supports your position, not mine. Hel-loo!
My post was not intended to "pick an argument." That’s not how I do things.
almarg Geoff, regarding your question just above, in one of my posts here yesterday I had quoted the following statement I made in an earlier fuse-related discussion:
... all or nearly all of the directional differences in resistance were vastly smaller than 5%, with the exception of the "standard glass fuse."
However, note that what the paper says is "the difference is in the range of 5%," not "generally around 5%." Differences that are "vastly smaller than 5%" are WITHin the range of 5%. So their statement is arguably accurate, although highly misleading.
Regards, -- Al
Are you pulling my leg, Al? In the range of 5% means exactly the same thing as generally around 5%. Therefore, their statement is not accurate at all. In fact, as I already pointed out, ALL measured differences were about an order of magnitude less than 5%. NONE were anywhere near 5% so YOUR INTERPRETATION MAKES NO SENSE. If things were as you say then they could have said "in the range of of 10%%, fortifying their argument. Apparently I was correct, you never read the HiFi Tuning data sheets carefully. Oh, well....
What’s bizarre, funny and ironic all at the same time is that you would pick an argument on this point since, you know, it kind of supports your position, not mine. Hel-loo! 😀
I wrote this just a bit of time ago, on another forum.
This is tied to the fuse issue and who may hear it and who may not. Complexity of systems and how they are assembled, etc can all play into this. Pay particular attention to the last two bits. It is a notable part of the disconnect point in these discussions:
A note from someone who has done many versions of many systems:
Perfect dynamic and level matching of passive and active can be a pain. All active or all passive tends to be the best ’match’ in seamless cohesion, where the bass does not sound disconnected to the given upper main box or transducer.
Powered subs in a set of mains always seems like a good idea, until you hear the dynamic contrasting disconnect. Dynamic contrasting or dynamic linearity (oxymoronic, but hey...) of passive and active are different from one another. Once heard or realized...then it’s over, forever, as you will forever after hear it in...pretty well - all of them.
Home theater, who cares, seamless is a unobtainable dream for most in those scenarios, and it seems the design is for bass emphasis anyway... but in two channel home audio, it can be laid bare, after a time.
We can lie to ourselves as that is literally the design of the ear, in one of it’s capacities...which is to do a form of ’fill in’ work. It has to do with how we decipher spoken word, in real time. Not really a lie to the brain but a form of sped up word deciphering via ’pre-load’ of a word upon hearing the initial aspects of it... and we can overlay that capacity on our musical note analysis.
This is the break point between people who analyze audio signals with their ears (essentially --- learn new languages) and people who mask and pre-load....who call it all snake oil and lies.
A fuse has a voltage drop and in the case of fast blow fuses, one that can be pretty variable as current varies through the device. This usually has an adverse effect on the sound if nothing is done in the circuit to deal with the phenomena.
Eliminating it is usually not an option as the equipment can become a shock and fire hazard and may do things like blow up amps and speakers if something goes wrong.
Can a fuse sound better than no fuse, as if it was bypassed, and if so, how? Does it somehow filter or organise the electron into a certain orientation?
Sidebar: How small can something be and still make a noticeable improvement? I gather most objections to the proposition that fuses can’t make a difference and that fuses can’t be directional have to do with the idea that fuses are just too small to make any significant difference. The fuse size is too small, the wire is too small. Which leads to my question. How many things can you think of that are very small and yet improve the sound? We can start off with tiny little bowls the diameter of which are around 7/8" or 1" and the PWB Silver Holographic Foil that is a mere 1/8" by 0.75" and Marigo VTS dots that are as small as 1/16" diameter.
Am I getting this right - those who don’t believe in fuse directionality do believe in cable directionality? No, I’m not talking about shielded cables or other special cases. Is it because fuses are so small? 😀
George, take it easy, dude. You might consider cutting back on the Joe.
Someone, Anyone, tell me what to measure with an VOM or LCR meter or any other way to know what direction to drop these fuses in.... I really don’t want to listen to them a week each way to figure it out... If it is that obvious, someone should have figured this out... So
There is no way, it’s all voodoo.
The minuscule amount, (millionths of ohms) that claim to have been measured can be attributed to all sorts of things as Almarg explained numerous times. And let just say there was a millionths of ohms difference, do you think a regulator that sits next in line in the circuit would care one iota!!!!!!! this is all BS and so are the people that claim it to be so. what about the dirty plug wiper contacts in your power point.
What people are hearing is are fuses that have seen too many turn on cycles which sags and carbons/corrodes them up, just replace for the same $1 fuse and your good to go. Here is the same fuse that has seen too many turn on surges, over time left to right.
DC or ac application of a fuse in the world of audio means it is subject
to having signal modulated though it, in almost every single case of
use. Except that of lets say a DC output power supply into another dc
circuit. Minimized flow changes.... but there may still be some residual
modulation in the throughput of the given fuse, if it is hooked up to a
circuit which modulates draw..as... Audio = inconstant dynamic ac
signal.
+1 Reducing intermodulation is indeed the name of the game. If employing fuses in DC circuits, local bypass capacitance is always a sound design practice.
We don't employ any fuses in the DC circuits of our equipment. They are all on the AC primaries of the power transformers involved. In most of our amplifiers there are three power transformers per channel. They are there to help reduce intermodulations that can otherwise occur in the circuit.
Excellent info and analysis. I just wish the naysayers just accept the fact that there is a difference. Who really cares the reason? I tried different fuses and configurations and picked the best that worked for me. Just sit back and enjoy the music stop the analysis paralysis!
Hey, you just reminded me! When can we expect to see some liquid fuses hit the market?
Also, question: are liquid cables directional? I’m of course referring to the conductor not the shield. I wouldn't think so but sometimes ya never know.
A fuse, but it's very nature, by it's very design parameters...exhibits some very well known "in-harmonic/non-linearity", or odd ordered distortions... when exposed to dynamic signal flow.
DC or ac application of a fuse in the world of audio means it is subject to having signal modulated though it, in almost every single case of use. Except that of lets say a DC output power supply into another dc circuit. Minimized flow changes.... but there may still be some residual modulation in the throughput of the given fuse, if it is hooked up to a circuit which modulates draw..as... Audio = inconstant dynamic ac signal.
The human ear is quite sensitive to the sort of non complementary distortion signals that a fuse contributes to the signal it is being modulated by.
Again, all of which (the fuse behaviour) is well known in the fuse business and associated science and engineering.
We do know the ear is inordinately sensitive to those odd ordered distortions.
Thus removing a fuse from a circuit is the biggest level of gain we can 'hear', in the given fusing situation (installing a conducting wire jumper/bypass, etc).
Altering the given in-situ fuse in one way or another may change those complex inharmonic signal modulations, which humans will, from all evidence shown..very likely hear as changes in the given signal.
No mystery.
Directional aspects are apparently the issue being debated at this time. A little more difficult to illustrate, within the confines of expected science and engineering, with respect to the average reader's education and scope of awareness in engineering - but not impossible.
But the given requisite is very unlikely to appear to those kind of people --who simply like to demand explanations. Which, due to psychology it may be they are not listening and, importantly..attempting to understand the given explanation or invoking their own intelligence capacities when reading the explanation. The brain/body interpreting.. and the given data envelope...can each be all over the map, so it is a stroke of luck, almost, if they meet at all.
There is also money on the table, as this fuse scenario and overall market of audio...involves how people hear and what they desire to hear, or like to hear when listening to audio signals.
Depending on the given company, some of that information is shared, some of it is held back as internal lore.
timlub @geoffkait You may think that its pretty obvious, but in cable manufacturing that isn’t the case.... Impedance, DC resistance, inductance, capacitance, skin effect all come into the effect of a cable.... Of course here we are speaking of a simple wire, maybe I shouldn’t assume that a tasty gourmet fuse would have more than simple DC resistance as a parameter.
>>>>You might possibly be overthinking this. I never said it was that simple. Obviously other factors/parameters are involved but fuses always sound best when the resistance is minimum, I.e., conductivity is highest. You can forget about the other parameters. Were you seriously considering measuring skin effect? 😀
I think you would probably agree there are many parameters involved with testing fuses other than the fuse parameters themselves, no? Parameters involved with the test itself.
I suggest you take a gander at the data sheets for fuse measurements on the HiFi Tuning website which are linked to somewhere on this thread.
By the way, when it comes to fuses nothing makes "all the sense in the world."
@atmosphere Hi Ralph, yep, read your post, it makes all the sense in the world. So understanding your own equipment will go along way in getting this right the first time. Appreciate you brother, Tim
@geoffkait You may think that its pretty obvious, but in cable manufacturing that isn't the case.... Impedance, DC resistance, inductance, capacitance, skin effect all come into the effect of a cable.... Of course here we are speaking of a simple wire, maybe I shouldn't assume that a tasty gourmet fuse would have more than simple DC resistance as a parameter.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
