Fuses that matter.

Mapman wrote,

"I do not say "think they heard" in any derogatory sense. One can only report what they think they hear. But the fact is that others may think they hear something totally different, even if in fact both are hearing the same thing. That is indisputable (I think)?"

Yeah, that's indisputable all right, if you believe in pretzel logic.

Mapman's wrote,

""Yeah, that's indisputable all right, if you believe in pretzel logic. "

GEoff, I suspect you are the master of that!"

You are correct. I am the master of that, too.

Mapman,

Please note my use of double quotes in front of my previous post. I included my original quote to keep the facts straight. :-)

Horse Latitudes

When the still sea conspires an armor
And her sullen and aborted
Currents breed tiny monsters
True sailing is dead
Awkward instant
And the first animal is jettisoned
Legs furiously pumping
Their stiff green gallop
And heads bob up
Poise
Delicate
Pause
Consent
In mute nostril agony
Carefully refined
And sealed over

- J. Morrison

Let's see, how many aftermarket fuses are there, including all the various Hi Fi Tuning fuses? Let's say seven for the purposes of argument. How many fuses does the average system contain? Allowing for 5-7 days for break-in, a proper comparative test of fuses should wrap up a "professional reviewer" for a good long while, about one year. And that's assuming that there is one type of fuse that is superior to all others in all installations - speakers, amps, etc. as Tgb points out that might very well not be the case. Then the number of test goes up astronomically. Let's say an average system contains 7 fuses. Now, I suspect there are some statisticians here who can do the calculation for how many tests would be required for 7 types of fuses and 7 fuse installations. And how long it would take. A hundred years?

Cheerio

Roxy, have you given any consideration to laying off the Viagra for a while?

Bryon wrote,

"So let me get this straight...

1. You guys say that people's opinions matter only if they experiment with fuses."

- Yes, otherwise it's just idle speculation.

"2. I experiment with fuses."

- Your opinion matters more than someone who hasn't experimented, but it is still an opinion. No one person's experiment is definitive, it's only a data point. We should consider your opinion along with all of the many other published experiments - and our own experiments. Simply because you are still sitting on the fence regarding fuses should not mean that anyone else should also be sitting on the fence.

"3. You guys say it is a waste of time to experiment with fuses."

- Strawman argument alert. I don't think anyone is saying that at all, at least not me. My "hundred years" comment was responding to another poster's inquiry regarding professional comparison tests of aftermarket fuses. I was pointing out the heroic effort that would be involved in such a comparison test, not that it would be a waste of time.

Mapman wrote,

"Once you've exhausted the possibilities based on science, science fiction is where it is at I suppose."

Mapman, you actually make an interesting point, unintentional, but interesting, nevertheless. If you don't know science or science fiction how can you expect to differentiate science from science fiction? Yeah, I know what you're thinking - "But I do know science, at least I think I must. After all, I do risk assessment."

Lol

Cheers,

Geoff

Mapman wrote,

""It's seems similar to a religious doctrine. "

Fusism would be a good name I suppose?

Nebulous things like this that defy scientific models will inevitably be viewed from a dogmatic perspective by each I suppose.

What else is there to say?"

Well, one thing that could be said is that all of the various aftermarket fuses, including Audio Magic's Nano Fuse, have been very favorably reviewed, often rave reviewed, in major audiophile magazines, at least once. A cursory search turned up eight reviews. A skeptic would say it's the placebo effect or expectation bias or group hypnosis. LOL

Mapman, sure you can find 8 guys somewhere in the world, but these particular 8 guys are experienced audio reviewers. Even more to the point they are 8 guys who actually sat down and listened to fuses, you know, as opposed to pontificating.

Mapman, you think audio reviewers are preaching? I guess that's in keeping with your whole religion analogy thing. If a reviewer doesn't like a product does that mean he's going to hell?

Bryon, congratulations on the most hilarious and deceptive post so far on this thread. I bow to your superior logic skills.

Cheers, Geoff

Nonoise wrote,

"It's simply a well worded mini treatise on what I and many others here (may I be so bold to include others) feel about this matter."

I can live with that. No skin off my nose.

Mapman wrote,

"Hilarious?

Deceptive?

I don't get it.

Heavy, maybe but rings true.

Let me activate my really clever little egg timer that i've been tinkering with to recalibrate the time decoding of my thoughts and see if that helps me get it maybe."

http://io9.com/5916646/pbs-autotunes-mr-rogers-the-results-are-tender-and-trippy

Bryon, what is hilarious is that you spend so much time arguing with *me* - geez, I thought everyone knew I was just a dodge and weave troll. Hell, I wasn't allowed to post here for four years, even to defend myself, because the threads tended to get a little, uh, out of hand. The threads on machina dynamica went south pretty fast even without me, as you can probably surmise. Ironically, I have been the number one seller on Audiogon for the past five years with the highest rating, too, so all this angst and hand wringing has me a little puzzled. I wonder, Is it something I said? Ha ha ha

Nonoise - Coming clean about what? Are you having a bad hair day, too?

All the best,

Geoff

Mapman wrote,

"Risk assessment is a small part of what I do technically actually."

Well, let me ask you, does any of the stuff you do technically give you any insights to say, tiny metal bowl resonators, Schumann frequency generators, vibration isolation, Shun Mook ebony discs, mind matter interaction, the physics of quantum dots, the physics of CD lasers, quantum teleportation, or the physics of electricity in wires.

Mapman also wrote,

"But I'm always glad to provide a good laugh!"

I'm always happy to get a good laugh, too. :-)

Geoff at Machina Dynamica

Bryon, another hilarious post....of course I was joking by calling myself a troll. Now, the real question is who is the troll here, you or me? You have certainly stalked me like one. By the way there are many reasons why you did not get definitive results with you fuse experiments, some of which have been touched upon, but since you are so persistent in stalking me, it might be of some interest to mention them now. One reason is your system is not up to standards needed for a test. You yourself pointed out the contacts had to be cleaned. That's not a very good sign. Another reason for inconclusive results is that your hearing is not all that you claim it is.

Funny, all this chestbeating and namecalling resulted from something as obscure and magical as a tiny little fuse.

Anyway, it's been nice stalking with you.

Cheers

Mapman wrote,

"To those who have and continue to enjoy better sound, more power to you. Just be sure you know what the hell you are doing before customizing expensive and complex electronic gear."

Faint heart n'e'r won fair maiden. Besides, replacing a fuse is not rocket science.

Mapman wrote,

"I'd like to think that my gear performs at a certain reputable level as long as quality components are used (including fuse). SOme audiophile fuses might qualify, some might not, but I do not even want to have to be concerned about how my fuse sounds, just that it does its job reliably and does not negatively impact what the design overall is supposed to accomplish."

While it may be true that a "certain reputable level," as you say, can be achieved without paying attention to fuses and such, it all comes down to what one is trying to achieve and how one defines "a certain reputable level" of quality. A lot of folks would say Bose achieves a certain reputable level of quality. The same argument can be made for any audio component or cable or speaker, depending on the level of sound quality one hopes to achieve by selecting X speaker and Y amplifier or Z cable. Most of us lay our money down and live with whatever sound we get, then perhaps system engineer things a bit to squeeze some more out. Is't it a little premature to write fuses off in light of all the positive press and customer testimony? With the potential of 5-10% or more improvement to the level of sound quality at stake, I'm not sure I completely understand all the handwringing and nonchalance. It can't all be anti tweak sentiment, can it?

Mapman wrote,

"I suspect Geoff's comments and opinions expressed are easily attributable to his vested interest as a vendor of what many consider some of the most "controversial" and unexplainable audio tweaks in existence."

Actually I only discuss my products when directly questioned about them, and even as a vendor I'm just as free as you or anyone else here to discuss anything on these forums, even fuses, which has been my main topic of discussion. I trust you aren't suggesting vendors should be allowed here.

Mapman also wrote,

"My only explanation for Geoff's products is that he is either from the future or from some other planet whose technology is beyond the comprehension of even the most brilliant and highly educated audiophiles in existence today."

I am not from the future or another planet, but I am sufficiently educated and have the necessary experience for this hobby. "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Mapman also wrote,

"Personally, were I a philanthropist in similar shoes, I would think I would seek to use my unequaled knowledge to solve bigger problems than the ones the rest of the audio industry has not already solved, but that is just me."

Well, that's very magnanimous of you. I guess you mean you would solve bigger problems as opposed to the navel gazing you do now. I have no such lofty aspirations, myself, and leave the bigger problems to those trained for such things.

Mapman wrote,

"Absolutely. Start up some appropriate threads and lets chat."

How 'bout this thread? Seems kind of appropriate. You go first.

Geoff, MD

Mapman wrote,

"I would not limit any vendor that disclose and acknowledge their financial interests in any way. Its all part of the learning process. Did you do that? Or was it left to others to make the connection?"

Huh?! There is no requirement here for vendors to disclose or acknowledge any such thing. And I am a little taken aback that not everyone makes the connection. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Bryon wrote,

"Taken on its own, this comment could be interpreted either literally or ironically. You're telling us now that you meant it ironically. If that were true, then why did you go on to say in the next sentence…

"Hell, I wasn't allowed to post here for four years, even to defend myself, because the threads tended to get a little, uh, out of hand." (Geoff's statement)"

The threads went south even when I wasn't allowed to post. Didn't I already say that? I.e., I was not the troll, I was the victim of trolling.

Bryon also wrote,

""…all this angst and hand wringing has me a little puzzled. I wonder, IS IT SOMETHING I SAID? HA HA HA[emphasis added]" (Geoff's original statement)
You are acknowledging in that sentence that you find it funny to provoke people with your posts. That is the VERY DEFINITION of a Troll. You are leaving Smoking Guns all over the place, Geoff. It's almost like you WANT to get caught."

Huh?! The angst and handwringing is there whether provoked or not. Folks have gotten their panties in a bunch over controversial tweaks for years. I do not happen to agree with you that provocative posts are necessarily trolls. If that were true, wouldn't that also make you a troll?

Bryon also wrote,

"You radically overestimate the plausibility of your façade of nonchalance. And you underestimate people’s ability to see what's underneath it. You can pretend to laugh this off, but the genie is out of the bottle."

Again, Huh! I thought I've been completely transparent, why should I try to hide anything? Pretend to laugh what off? I'm not guilty of anything. Besides, I am laughing, but laughing seriously, nothing pretend about it.

Bryon also wrote,

"Moving on to your latest attempt at misdirection…
"Now, the real question is who is the troll here, you or me? You have certainly stalked me like one." (Geoff's statement)

I'VE stalked YOU? Hmm. Let me think about that. Why don't we take a look at the evidence? Here are our first five interactions on this thread..."

Well, I suspect you're probably making too much of the way the thread developed as to whether I was actually stalking you. As I recall I responded to some of your posts early on because you made some interesting/provocative statements that I felt obliged to respond to. Nothing so profound as stalking, though.

Bryon also wrote,

"As for your comments about my system and my hearing, you really are grasping at straws. It’s sad."

Well, what else could you say?

Nice stalking with you,

Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica

Bryon, you seem to have something against sophistry.

From Wikipedia/Sophistry:

In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others: "Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience."

I think that the selling of ideas is just as important as the ideas sometimes, don't you? If you can't sell the idea the idea will be lost. So chalk one up for the sophists.

"[1] A few sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs."

That I can certainly understand, that it's difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

"Many of them taught their skills for a price."

I think that's what any reasonable person would do.

"Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them."

Again, the popular reaction is quite understandable. Why not question the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the Earth, indeed? Chalk another one up for the sophists.

"The attacks of some of their followers against Socrates prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist.[2] Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism."

The resentment and vigorous attacking sound so familiar, I can't quite place where I've seen this sort of behavior before.....lol. You can't tell the Sophists from the Realists without a scorecard. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

Corazon wrote,

"Then remembered all the old sci-fi comic book covers adorning your sight. And it struck me, Geoff has us all fooled! He really is the troll, telling us at the top of each page how far fetched and ridiculous he really believes these claims are! And he is getting people to buy them! Laughing all the way to the bank! Good for you Geoff."

Well, if you think about it a little bit more, Dave, I could be telling you at the top of each page how far fetched and ridiculuous *you* really believe these claims are. And don't you think that's more to the point?

Corazon also wrote,

"I have visited your site and tried to read and digest your paper on the "Intelligent Chip." Quite frankly you lost me. One of the most difficult and confounding pieces I've ever tried to read. Couldn't finish it. After visiting your site I really wanted to give claims as to why these things work a fair shake in fairness to you. You've got some pretty vague far out explanations. Hard for me to believe."

I never claimed the paper on the IC would be an easy read or understand, you know, what with artificial atoms, quantum confinement, quantum superposition and all. You should have finished the paper, BTW, all is revealed at the end. :-;

Corazon also wrote,

"Being sufficiently educated, as evidenced by your credentials, I wonder why a scientific mind as yours would not want to clearly in laymens terms explain how and why your products work? And offer proof through verifiable, repeatable, method? I am especially interested in "Mind over matter" science and it's discovery and development."

Huh? I thought I did explain my products in laymans terms. I don't think there is necessarily an easy way, one easily digestible by everyone, to explain some of these things, like quantum superposition or De Broglie wavelength. There is plenty of info around on mind matter interaction, especially work by Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR), the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL) which has a new book out on the subject, available at Amazon. There is also Rupert Sheldrake and his morphic resonance theories that involve mind matter interaction, among other things, especially his landmark book, Presence of the Past. And you might not have picked up on the Mind Lamp on my web page, the device from ICRL that demonstrates mind matter interaction.

Corazon also wrote,

"Certainly one of the preeminent thinkers of our time. Yes, Clarke is right. Nano this and that, particle accelerators, computers, nuclear energy and innumerable other advances I know nothing of are like magic. But every single one was arrived at through sound scientific investigation. All being reproducible with known verifiable results."

Huh?! So what are saying, that my products are not arrived at through sound scientific investigation and reproducible with known verifiable results? That's a pretty big assumption, I'll write that off as wishful thinking on your part.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

Bryon wrote,

"You seem to think that the recurring opposition to you, your ideas, and your products is a form of persecution. I would invite you to consider that the force you've been fighting against for years isn't persecution. It's Reality."

You're close, very close. The force I've been fighting against is Their Reality. See the difference?

Geoff Kait
Www.machinadynamica.com

The fact is a this is applied physics not theoretical physics. Someone is a little superstitious, one assumes....how long have directional cables and directional fuses been with us? Gotta be at least twenty years.

Hifitime, I was not aware they can measure soundstage height, microdynamics, transparency, pop, lushness, presence, shimmer, glassiness, glare, grain, openness, liquidness, timbre, rhythm, pitch, slam or air.  

Hifitime, it's not entirely accurate to say that all fuse manufactures do not provide fuse measurements. Link to Hi Fi Tuning fuse data sheets below:

http://www.ultrasystem.com/usfeaturedprodsFUSE_LIT.html

Geoff Kait
machina dynamica

I just received a response from Audio Magic to my question, "is the liquid inside the Nano Liquid Fuse conductive?" His answer is, "No."

Mapman wrote,

"This is my last post about fuses! It's been real....."

Thank goodness.

:-)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

The WA Quantum Chips from Germany come in a variety of, uh, formulations. One of the formulations is intended for fuses. In fact, the fuse type WA Quantum Chip will be incorporated into all Hi Fi Tuning fuses in the future.

Web site for WA Quantum Chip at:

http://www.kempelektroniks.com/Accessoires/WA-Quantum-Chips-(1).aspx

Tgb wrote,

"Why they work I don't know, but work they most definitely do."

Can we rule out vibration control?

;-)

Tbg, you might have missed the smiley face after what I had intended to be a tongue in cheek comment regarding vibration control. Perhaps there's a clue in the name, WA Quantum Chip. Hmmmm.......

Actually the fuse wire of the Gold Fuse is silver alloy, the end caps are gold plating over copper. The reason for gold for the end caps is less oxidation compared to copper or silver, obviously.

Mapman wrote,

"Benefits should always outweigh risks. That's the basic equation for what works. The users decides. The purpose of a fuse is to protect the equipment that uses it. That's the main benefit. WHatever it might or might not do for sound quality should be a secondary consideration IMHO."

Faint heart ne'er won fair maiden. Methinks you worry too much.

"Most everyone at the Geek Meet in the Desert cannot get above the noise floor." - Stereophile reviewer Shannon Dickson's comment on the sound of high end systems at CES

It's worth pointing out someone can get an improvement to the sound without spending ANY money. By reversing existing original fuses in the system one at time and deciding by ear which direction sounds better you can get quite a significant improvement. What are the odds that an original fuse was inserted correctly - about 50-50?

That's pretty humorous. The symbol on the HIFI Tuning fuse is actually a diode and is used to show the direction of current flow so the fuse can be inserted properly. A diode signifies an asymmetrical transfer characteristic, you know, as opposed to any sort of filter.

Just in case, the WA Chips for capacitors should go on the top of the caps, as opposed to the side.

This might be a good time to remind folks that quite a lift in sound quality can be achieved without buying ANY new fuses at all. What are the odds that the existing stock fuses in any given amp or speaker were originally inserted in the correct orientation? If you guess 50% you're correct. So, the trick is to make all the fuses in the system be the correct orientation. The way to do this is reverse the direction of fuses one at a time, listening each time. Reverse the first fuse direction - If the sound gets more harsh and unnatural sounding put the fuse back in the way it was. If you are uncertain which direction is correct by ear, leave as it is for the time being and proceed to the next fuse. Reverse the direction of the second fuse and evaluate the sound. When all fuses have been evaluated, you should observe the system sounds more natural and less distorted and harsh than before you started to change fuse directions. There still might be some fuses that are not in the correct orientation due to uncertainty during evaluation. Repeating the whole procedure should uncover any fuses that still remain incorrectly oriented.

Mapman wrote,

"In general, I do not advocate people open up their expensive gear and make a tweak in the interest of better sound unless they really know what they are doing. Accidents happen, and there are many other much less risky ways to tweak for better sound. In some cases, vendors might even void a warranty if the device is opened up by anyone not authorized."

Thanks for the words of caution. Crap, I already had my Oppo modded! Please don't rat me out to Oppo. Lol

I dunno if anyone else has tried it, but I personally find the new Super Fuse from Audio Magic to be very open, detailed and natural sounding.

Great question. Also, has anyone compared the Audio Horizons, Synergistic Research Red and the new improved Audio Magic Super Fuse?

Hi, audio labyrinth, Hi Fi Tuning used to claim that his fuses were not directional and that they would break in properly no matter which way they were inserted. But he has since recanted. In fact his data sheets provided on the Hi Fi Tuning web site illustrate that in fact wire is directional, and will exhibit slightly less resistance, for example, one way than the other. It's an easy experiment to listen to any fuse one way then the other. Hint: when the fuse is inserted in the wrong direction you should hear a little less coherent sound and a little more say stringent or harsh metallic sound.

One reason why aftermarket fuses usually sound better than stock fuses is simply because they are inserted in the proper direction, especially if the stock fuse was inserted backwards. Now, knowing that wire in the fuse is directional should be a tip-off that all wire is directional, no? Can you imagine what the sound could be like if all speakers and electronics and transformers and capacitors, etc. were fabricated with this directionality in mind? Hel-loo!

Why does direction matter? If you were an electromagnetic wave would you rather travel over a porcupine's back with the quills or against the quills?

If it's so easy why don't more people do it? Lol

http://www.hifi-tuning.com/pdf/wlfr.eng.pdf

Tbg, no offense intended but I suggest you try a second reading of the data.

;-)