05-12-12: Almarg
(a)The EXPLANATIONS that are offered for their purported effects do not stand up under quantitative scrutiny. Hi Al - There's a guy over on the Polk Audio forum who claimed his measurements corroborated both that fuses measure differently and that even fuse directions measure differently. You can see his measurements here. I don't really know what to make of it. What do you think? (b)I suspect that a substantial number of reports of differences, but certainly not all such reports, are due either to failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, or to effects that are system dependent and do not have broad applicability to other systems, or to misperception. This happend to me, as I described in an earlier post on this thread. When I first installed the Hifi Tuning fuse in my amp, there was a noticeable jump in headroom. I thought, "Wow, these really work." When I later A/B'd the Hifi Tuning fuse with the stock fuse, I could not reproduce the effect. Therefore, my initial impression was either (a) misperception or (b) attributable to some other variable (cleaner contacts, better grip on the fuse, etc.). (c)I see no reason to expect that where a fuse upgrade makes a difference that the difference will always, or even usually, be for the better. This also happened to me, as I mentioned earlier. After extended listening, I preferred the sound of the stock fuses to the Hifi Tuning fuses, both in my amp and my preamp. Of course, I've since ordered fancy fuses from two other manufacturers -- Furutech and Isoclean. So maybe I'm in for a real treat! Hmm. For some reason I'm reminded of birth rates. Bryon P.S. For a limited time only, I'm making available a pair of Hifi Tuning fuses. I've done the courtesy of breaking them in for you. Just $300 for the pair. Don't miss out!! |
05-12-12: Geoffkait
As a skeptic, don't you think truth would be better served by actual investigation rather that idle speculation from the comfort of your Barko Lounger? You might consider taking a tip from PT Barnum who said, folks would be better off believing in too much rather than too little. Scientific investigation and scientific progress draw upon a combination of observation, experimentation, analysis, technical understanding, and (dare I say it) reasoned judgment and common sense, among other factors. I see no reason for audio to be any different. Each individual will (and should) invest his or her time and money in ways that he or she judges to have the greatest likelihood of being productive. In making that judgment, individual experimentation, reports of experimentation by others, analysis, technical understanding, and common sense all have their place. The likelihood of optimal results from those investments of time and money will be maximized if all of those elements are drawn upon. The likelihood of optimal results from those investments will be minimized if there is an over-reliance on unchallenged anecdotal reports. Concerning your reference to me "as a skeptic," I have nowhere in this thread or elsewhere ruled out the possibility that changing fuses can make a difference. I have, though, expressed skepticism about directionality. What I have said about changing fuses can be summarized as follows: (a)The EXPLANATIONS that are offered for their purported effects do not stand up under quantitative scrutiny. (b)I suspect that a substantial number of reports of differences, but certainly not all such reports, are due either to failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, or to effects that are system dependent and do not have broad applicability to other systems, or to misperception. (c)I see no reason to expect that where a fuse upgrade makes a difference that the difference will always, or even usually, be for the better. (d)I would not be surprised if an extensive comparison of a variety of inexpensive fuses would result in differences comparable to those that are commonly reported to result from changing from stock fuses to expensive fuses. Regarding P. T. Barnum, he is often credited (perhaps incorrectly) with having made a completely different statement, that on occasion seems applicable to audio. It had something to do with birth rates. :-) Brett (Isochronism), thank you most kindly. Regards, -- Al |
Mapman, you said,
"There are smart people here. Scientists and engineers. How about actually discussing some of your scientific breakthroughs in scientific terms rather than muddying the waters via logic based on non-facts?
One man's - or should I say one Mapman's - non-facts are another man's facts.
But You make a valid point - why don't I discuss my scientific breakthroughs here? You might not have noticed, but over the past 8 years or so there have been quite a few discussions about my products here on Agon. Unfortunately, as you might be aware, these discussions always lead to a train wreck. Make sense? Consequently, it just doesn't make sense for me to initiate discussions of my products. There was some discussion recently, so you might search the forum.
Furthermore, many of my products are proprietary. However, I provide the operational concepts of many of my products on my web site.
Cheers, Geoff |
Geoff,
There are smart people here. Scientists and engineers. How about actually discussing some of your scientific breakthroughs in scientific terms rather than muddying the waters via logic based on non-facts?
"Onviously a lot of folks think many of my products absurd, while I do not, obviously."
You said it not me.
Do you offer stock for purchase? Opinions might change if there is money to be made. |
In regard to Al's postings, I give a two Channel Masters UP! (as in two thumbs up..) |
Geoff, in defense of Al, his "idle speculation" comes from the comfort of a Wassily B3, not a Barco Lounger (Barcalounger, correct name). So there!
Al, keep the idle speculation coming! :) |
Bryon, you said,
"Again, I agree. More importantly, UFO's exist! Whether they contain little green men is another question. But the documentation of UFO encounters is vast and incontrovertible. For a recent book that compiles the official testimony of dozens of military pilots, commercial pilots, radarmen, commanding officers up to the level of General, and others, see Leslie Kean's recent book. To the uninitiated, it's shocking. Most of the Ideological Skeptics I know won't read it! :-)
Bryon, you said,
"Again, I agree. More importantly, UFO's exist! Whether they contain little green men is another question. But the documentation of UFO encounters is vast and incontrovertible. For a recent book that compiles the official testimony of dozens of military pilots, commercial pilots, radarmen, commanding officers up to the level of General, and others, see Leslie Kean's recent book. To the uninitiated, it's shocking. Most of the Ideological Skeptics I know won't read it! :-)
I knew we'd finally agree on something. Lol. Would you believe I used to work right down the street from Operation Bluebook, the Air Force office investigating UFOs at Wright Patterson AFB way back when? You Tube has some Rather difficult to explain, highly entertaining videos of UFOs. |
Mapman - I want a piece of that. There's gold in them hills! 05-12-12: Geoffkait
I think it would be a fair statement to say, however, that many of the "arguments" presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery actually do apply to many of the debates on audio forums, especially those concerning controversial tweaks, like the directionality of fuses or fuses in general. I agree with this, Geoff. And I too find it regrettable, because it shuts down the exploration of ideas. But I will reiterate that I do not believe that Drasin's descriptions of Ideological Skepticism describe Al. Although he and I have never met in person, I can say with absolute confidence that he is open minded. I have personally presented a number of "mystery experiences," in threads like this, this, this, and this, and in each of those he demonstrated abundant open mindedness. Others can report similar experiences. So your choice of target was poor, IMO. Moving on... Drasin's descriptions of Ideological Skepticism don't remind me of scientists, but they DO remind me of people who are dogmatic or doctrinaire, and there are plenty of those around. My suspicion is that the scientific community has FEWER people that meet that description than the general public. But of course that is a speculation. And finally to the topic that will send this thread over a cliff... I suspect the arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery are probably intended to represent those who feel threatened - or feel that the scientific community is threatened - by something that cannot be explained, like UFOs Again, I agree. More importantly, UFO's exist! Whether they contain little green men is another question. But the documentation of UFO encounters is vast and incontrovertible. For a recent book that compiles the official testimony of dozens of military pilots, commercial pilots, radarmen, commanding officers up to the level of General, and others, see Leslie Kean's recent book. To the uninitiated, it's shocking. Most of the Ideological Skeptics I know won't read it! :-) Bryon |
Almarg, you said,
"To conjure up an example, suppose someone posts on the Internet that he has noticed that the sound of his system is significantly different depending on whether or not the TV set is on or off in the home of a friend living a mile away. He asserts that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two variables. Would you consider it unacceptable to dispute that claim without trying it?"
Of course, anyone can devise an absurd situation, but that doesn't mean mean all "absurd" audio tweaks are fabrications or impossible. If fact, your strawman argument, if I can be so bold to point out, is one of the illogical arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Even Bryon will certainly agree with me here.
Cheers, Geoff |
Almarg, you asked,
"Geoff, let me pose a simple question. When a seemingly absurd claim of sonic benefit from some tweak is offered, do you consider that there can EVER be a finite limit to its apparent degree of absurdity beyond which it is justifiable to dismiss the claim "a priori"?"
Well, what you consider absurd I or someone else might not. Onviously a lot of folks think many of my products absurd, while I do not, obviously. One of the points of Zen and the Art of Debunkery is the ease with which many well-educated folks dismiss mysterious or absurd ideas or phenomena. One might even say the more the higher education, the stronger the attitude, as I've intimated recently on this thread. Ironically, skeptics seem to be under the impression that the full force of science and the scientific community is backing them up. "Science will not allow it, it disobeys all known laws of science, etc. As if the skeptic even knows all thenlaws of science. Talk about absurd! Lol
As a skeptic, don't you think truth would be better served by actual investigation rather that idle speculation from the comfort of your Barko Lounger? You might consider taking a tip from PT Barnum who said, folks would be better off believing in too much rather than too little.
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic." - Arthur C Clarke
Cheers, Geoff |
Geoff, let me pose a simple question. When a seemingly absurd claim of sonic benefit from some tweak is offered, do you consider that there can EVER be a finite limit to its apparent degree of absurdity beyond which it is justifiable to dismiss the claim "a priori"? To conjure up an example, suppose someone posts on the Internet that he has noticed that the sound of his system is significantly different depending on whether or not the TV set is on or off in the home of a friend living a mile away. He asserts that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two variables. Would you consider it unacceptable to dispute that claim without trying it? 05-12-12: Tbg
Rogermod, you suggest that hearing differences in fuses is not resistance and that maybe we should consider microphonics. Norm, that isn't what he meant. He meant that an analysis could be performed for microphonics that would show it to be comparably insignificant to resistance. Bryon, thanks very much. Coming from a person of your intellectual caliber, those are indeed meaningful compliments. Regards, -- Al |
Home audio is more about perceptions in practice than science, fbofw. Science cannot model human perceptions accurately yet.
Now back to planning out mg audiphile fuse company. $$$$s. M dynamica, watch out. Here i come! Yeeha! |
Rogermod, you suggest that hearing differences in fuses is not resistance and that maybe we should consider microphonics. I don't know anyone who has ever suggested that differences are resistance, but certainly microphonics has been suggested. But the reality the search should be on as to what it is. Not to dismiss that there is a difference. This unscientific resistance to the possibility of differences, is why I dropped out of majoring in EE. |
Bryon,
Of course I would never say or imply that all of the points in Zen and the Art of Debunkery apply to all scientists or to any one person. I think it would be a fair statement to say, however, that many of the "arguments" presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery actually do apply to many of the debates on audio forums, especially those concerning controversial tweaks, like the directionality of fuses or fuses in general. I suspect you will find many of the "strawman arguments" in ZATAOD are used commonly by Skeptics and OBjectivusts in these debates and other debates. I do not intend to suggest anyone is in need of medical or psychological help just because they use fallacious arguments. But it is what it is, I am only pointing out that such lines of argument exist here - whether intentional or not.
Almarg said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination...
Zen and the Art of Debunkery:
<> If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.
The general idea of Zen and the Art of Debunkery is that that anyone, even a scientist, especially a renowned scientist, or a well-published scientist, can sit in the comfort of his easy chair and attack a controversial subject, like directionality of fuses, or what have you, from a number of angles. From a rhetorical perspective, i suppose this tactic can convince a non scientist his argument must be correct. You know, the "old science is on my side" argument. "I know a scientist and milk shot out of his nose when I told him what audiophiles believe." lol
I suspect the arguments presented in Zen and the Art of Debunkery are probably intended to represent those who feel threatened - or feel that the scientific community is threatened - by something that cannot be explained, like UFOs - "It disobeys all known laws of science, the people who report the phenomenon are either hallucinating, cannot conduct proper scientific tests, are easily fooled or are in need of medical help".
The skeptical community and the scientific community are excellent in constructing arguments, including fallacious (Strawman) arguments, that appear to be intended to halt scientific investigation. But Isn't the scientific method, especially investigation, the underlying requirement for arriving at the truth?
Additional bullets from Zen and the Art of Debunkery for your consideration.
<> Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!
<> Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)
<> Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such were true, we would would already know about it!"
Geoff |
05-11-12: Geoffkait
Almarg, you said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination..."
The problem here, methinks, is that you assume that nobody who hears the benefit of aftermarket fuses or fuse directionality is capable of conducting a proper experiment. Zen and the Art of Debunkery might be of some help to naysayers in crafting arguments why fuses cannot be of much importance. Please find below a few examples for your consideration... Geoff - The examples which you go on to quote, drawn from Daniel Drasin's Zen and the Art of Debunkery are, without doubt, many of the unfair tactics employed by devotees of Ideological Skepticism. Drasin's arguments remind me of Thomas Kuhn's observations about scientific progress in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, except that Kuhn spoke from a podium, and Drasin speaks from a soapbox. While I agree with many of Kuhn's and Drasin's observations about the sociological, methodological, and ideological obstacles to scientific discovery, I don't agree with Drasin's apparent belief that a significant fraction of scientists are regularly prejudicial, dishonest, close minded, rigid, arrogant, childish, dismissive, dogmatic, illogical, reductionistic, manipulative, unprincipled, deceptive, and sophistic. While SOME of those terms certainly apply to SOME scientists, characterizing the scientific community as a whole in that way is a grotesque distortion of reality. From what I can tell, you have a background as a scientist, Geoff. So you may question the basis of my impressions of the scientific community. While there are a great many people who have more experience with scientists than I do, I can tell you that I've done post-graduate work with 2 scientists at the forefront of their field. My closest friend is a high ranking government scientist working at CalTech. I've been acquainted with a dozen more scientists and science historians. I wrote a dissertation in the philosophy of science, part of which was published as a paper in the journal The Philosophy of Science. So while I'm not a professional scientist, my acquaintance with science and scientists is not casual. Returning to how this bears on this thread... So far as I can tell, very few of the unfair tactics employed by Ideological Skeptics appear on this thread. And by quoting Al, you appear to be implying that what Drasin describes about Ideological Skepticism also describes Al. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading Al's comments, on this thread or any other, will see the patent absurdity of that suggestion. Geoff, you regularly accuse other posters of strawmanning. I would invite you to consider that, when taken as descriptions of the scientific community as a whole, Drasin's statements are a reckless act of strawmanning. And, when taken as descriptions of Al, your statements are a preposterous act of strawmanning. You seem to be surrounded by straw men. There are medical experts who can help. The first step is admitting... Bryon |
Lol mapman,
A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight & his punishment Is that he shall see the dawn before the rest of the world... Or something like that!
Hang in there Geoff. My feeling is that if it works for you it works. All scientific theories & ideas have been battled over before the weight of proof finally could not be ignored with advancement in our understandings of the observation.
I seem to remember Darwin was very frightened by his findings vs religious doctrine wasn't he?
Why is gravity so weak a force? Why does the fuse sound better this way around? Why am I here? The big questions! |
Nothing spells science like Machina Dynamica.... |
As I have stated somewhere above they work for me and I have no idea why.
At $90 each (quite a bit for a fuse)I bought two for my SET amps.The improvement in dynamics,imaging and clarity were not subtle.
Logically there is no reason,scientific or otherwise to think a simple fuse can improve the performance of one's system as it does.
Will it work in your system ?? Only you can determine that and the answer can not be found in this forum.It can only be done by listening |
Almarg, you said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination..."
The problem here, methinks, is that you assume that nobody who hears the benefit of aftermarket fuses or fuse directionality is capable of conducting a proper experiment. Zen and the Art of Debunkery might be of some help to naysayers in crafting arguments why fuses cannot be of much importance. Please find below a few examples for your consideration.
<> Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo.)
<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.
Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica |
Since the scope of the discussion seems to be broadening somewhat, I'll make a couple of general observations about differences that are alleged but that seem to have no rational basis, or at least no rational basis that is quantitatively supportable. First, it is commonly stated that expectations and the placebo effect can affect perceptions, both positively and negatively. That undoubtedly occurs in some cases. But my feeling is that a more significant effect may be that expectations may bias the EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY in ways that lead to erroneous conclusions. In this case, specifically, it would appear that in many cases claims of substantial benefit from upgrading of fuses result from a comparison between the stock fuse and one or several expensive fuses. But if comparably intensive comparisons were performed between a number of different inexpensive fuses, what basis is there to assume that comparable benefits mightn't have been obtained at much lower cost, in the particular system? Second, I would re-emphasize what I said in my post of 4-28-12: ... positive results don't mean much either, unless:
A)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner, and with sufficient understanding of the variables that might affect the results, such that there can be a reasonable degree of certainty that the result is being attributed to the correct variable.
For example, extraneous variables that could conceivably affect assessment of a fuse, especially one that is claimed by some to require 100 hours of breakin, would include ongoing aging, breakin, loss of breakin or rebreakin of system components; equipment being in a different state of warmup during the different parts of the comparison; differences in contact integrity resulting from removing and replacing the fuse, including scraping away of oxidation that may occur, as well as differences in contact pressure; changes in AC line voltage or noise conditions; changes in room temperature (temperature is a parameter that is fundamental to the physics of transistors and other semiconductor devices); and changes in RFI/EMI conditions.
B)There is sufficient understanding of the mechanisms by which the device works, if in fact it does work, to provide confidence that its effects are not just a quirk of its interaction with the particular system, that would not occur in many or most other systems.
For example, a finding that a fuse makes a difference with a Class AB or Class D amplifier, for which the AC current draw fluctuates dramatically as the volume of the music varies, IMO would say nothing about the likelihood that it would make a difference with a Class A amplifier, for which there is little fluctuation in AC current draw.
C)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination (a la the stock market, ca. 2000). As a minimum, that would mean going back and forth at least a couple of times between the devices being compared, to verify that the results are repeatable. In saying that, I am not necessarily referring to an immediate ABX-type back and forth comparison, since I recognize that not all differences will be perceivable in a short-term comparison. It is not my expectation that these factors explain all or perhaps even most seemingly implausible perceptions, but that they explain a lot of them. Regards, -- Al |
Bryon, I'm trying to make some sense of this as well. I don't question Tbg experience but am skeptical, as I was long time ago with cables. It is always important to be informed and that was done thanks to this thread. |
05-11-12: Kijanki
...we discuss here if "major difference in my sound" that Tbg experienced can be repeated and benefit others. Hi Kijanki - Yes, the question of whether fuses can make a "major difference" in sound quality is one of the things we've been discussing. But there's also a contingent of people who maintain that there is NO audible difference among fuses. So that seems to be a topic of discussion as well. At one end of the continuum, we have the folks who say that fancy fuses are amazing. At the other end, we have the folks who say that they're nonsense. I've been exploring, both through discussion and through (admittedly unscientific) experimentation, whether the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As it usually does. Bryon |
Yes, its funny that my wife has no problems with my stereo gear except when I play it too loud, but hates to have "messy" wires showing. :-) |
Mapman, Now I'm 100% sure we're going nowhere, since you brought wives into discussion. |
"the color of the cable jacket"
My wife would lose more sleep over that one than I. |
Purity of metal, yes, and type of metal, whether the metal is alloyed with gold, whether the conductor is solid core or stranded, the geometry of the conductor (e.g., twisted pairs), the diameter (gauge) of the conductor, the color of the cable jacket, whether the cable is properly broken in, whether the cable has been cryogenically treated and what system the cable is inserted into. And finally the directionality of the cable. |
Mapman, that's true but if you take into consideration things like purity of metal, resistance, inductance, capacitance, dielectric constant and absorption it will be all multiplied by hundreds in power cable simply because of the length not to mention things that don't even apply like shielding. I'm only skeptical about "major difference in sound" in my system. |
"These are precisely the same strawman arguments that skeptics of cable differences have put forth for more than thirty years - I.e., cables that measure the same must sound the same. Of course, any yutz with ears knows that's not the case. "
One could argue that with a the right set of complete and relevent measurements, cables with similar characteristics,including things like solid/braided construction, shielded/nonshielded, etc., in addition to the usual common electrical/ratio data type measurements, will tend to sound similar.
|
The assumption that differences in resistance are (solely) responsible for fuse directionality is most likely a false assumption, a strawman argument as it were. As would the assumption that differences in capacitance, if any are measurable, are (solely) responsible for differences in sound. These are precisely the same strawman arguments that skeptics of cable differences have put forth for more than thirty years - I.e., cables that measure the same must sound the same. Of course, any yutz with ears knows that's not the case. |
Bryon, Roger talks about any detectable change in sound while we discuss here if "major difference in my sound" that Tbg experienced can be repeated and benefit others. |
Roger makes a compelling case. When I hear things like that, it erodes my confidence in my (already tentative) belief that fuses have audible effects. Having said that, I conducted a second experiment (I use that term loosely) that corroborated (I use that term loosely as well) my initial impression that fuses do in fact have audible effects. In my first experiment about a week ago, I A/B'd the stock fuse in my amp with a Hifi Tuning fuse. I swapped back and forth about 15 or 20 times. Each time, I heard a difference (or to put it less controversially, I BELIEVE I heard a difference). What surprised me almost as much was the fact that I preferred the sound of the amp with the stock fuse (15¢) rather than the fancy fuse ($50). The day before yesterday I conducted a similar experiment with my preamp. Again, I swapped fuses maybe 15 or 20 times. Again, I heard (or believe I heard) a difference. Again, I preferred the sound of the stock fuse. In both the amp and the preamp, the Hifi Tuning fuses had a strange phasiness, lack of pitch definition in the bass, and imprecise imaging. None of that was audible with the stock fuses. Possible interpretations of the data... 1. Fuses have audible effects. 2. I am crazy. 3. A butterfly is trapped somewhere in the house. 4. All of the above. Which of these is true remains unclear. So I've done the only thing a sane, rational, and sensible person could do. I've ordered a Furutech fuse. Bryon |
"Thank you, Roger, for bringing the expertise of a distinguished designer to this issue."
Amen.
My best opinion is that a fuse that effects the sound in a significant manner is defective and should be replaced by one that is not. |
Thank you, Roger, for bringing the expertise of a distinguished designer to this issue. As I said in my post dated 4-29-12, the explanations that tend to be offered for the supposed benefits of expensive fuses seem plausible until they are looked at quantitatively.
Best regards,
-- Al |
Has anyone considered what portion of the total resistance the fuse contributes to the whole of the circuit in which it is inserted?
From the Tuning Fuse data sheet their 2 amp slow blow 5x20 fuse has a resistance of 24.077 milliohms in one direction and 24.115 in the other direction and 26.257 in the holder. If a butterfly flew by while the measurements were taking place we might see a bigger difference than the 0.038 milliohm difference in direction. Of course it might depend on which direction the butterfly was flying. But nevermind, the direction measurements were made with DC and we are using these fuses in AC circuits. Perhaps if the butterfly flies clockwise vs counterclockwise there will be a difference.
Sorry I just had to put that in to keep up with all the humor that has been presented here.
Back to the numbers: A common fuse of the same rating from Littlefuse has 37 milliohms (note that they don't take the numbers to 5 places being real scientists). So lets look at the total resistance of the circuit. A device that uses a 2 amp fuse will typically have a transformer whose primary resistance is 5 ohms or so and it's wound with around 200 feet of ordinary copper magnet wire of about 24 gauge.
The wiring from your high grade hospital outlet back to Hoover Dam is about 0.5 ohms, which is really quite amazing. It could be as high as 1 ohm. And lets not even think of what that's made of.
So to add it up the tuning fuse has a total of 5.525 ohms in the primary circuit and the Littlefuse has 5.537 for a difference of 0.012 ohms or one part in 458. In decibles that difference is 53 dB down. Now a power supply takes in 120 volts and when by the time it gets rectified and filtered the hum at the main filter is about a volt so now we have reduced the AC to 1 part in 120 thats another 41 db.
Your unit likely has a 50 cent three terminal regulator that reduces the hum by another 60 db or the amplifier itself does that. So now we are down 53+41+60 dB for a grand total of 154 dB. I am really impressed with listeners who can hear a difference that's 154 dB down.
Shall we do the numbers on the microphonics next? |
Bryoncunningham, sorry I am not going to post further on this aspect of fuses. If you want to further discuss your experiences or where you had success, I am interested.
Chadeffect, my first experience with fuses and their direction was when Lloyd Walker of Walker Audio concerning his power supply for his turntable. He said that I might want to reverse it and see if I heard a difference which was better. Lloyd is very sincere, so I took him seriously and tried it. He was right. I did frequently check this on components thereafter. Like you some showed little difference and others a great difference. Mainly, I just tried the fuse both ways and chose the best. But some times I learned which side of the fuse was the wall plug side. Later when I got the IsoClean fuses there was an arrow to indicate this direction. This was also when I first experienced shall I call them "designer" fuses. |
Poor cockroaches. Not sure if they noticed which direction the fuse was pointing either, but I (not a cockroach) have noticed a slight smearing when a fuse has been used one way then flipped around. I have noticed a similar sound when using a speaker cable the "wrong way" around too.
I think this difference in sound with the direction of a fuse depends on a few things:-
1 the equipment fuse used in. I haven't noticed fuse direction issues in DACs or transports. But i believe i have in preamps & tube amps.
2 the system. How transparent etc?
3 how well you know the system/gear being used?
4 whether you are experience in listening for such small changes in presentation/tone, which is obviously linked to point 3.
Personally I think a fuse can be a nice tweak, and an important one for those of us audiophools. |
Audiofeil, That's uncalled for. This is an audio forum, where sharing experiences is the primary objective and desire. I notice you have a pronounced tendency not to participate in meaningful discussions, choosing instead to fire off your usual snarky, sophomoric comments. |
>>but mainly I post to share my experiences
.......<<
How egocentric to think anybody cares. |
Wow, Tbg. That was quite a volatile reaction. I suggest you take a cooling off period before you read my reply. Here was my initial comment
I'm not saying that fuse direction can't have audible effects. I'm just saying that, for me, it did not. That could be because...
1. My ears aren't good enough.
2. My system isn't good enough.
3. My amp is not sensitive to fuse direction.
4. Nothing is sensitive to fuse direction.
About which is true, I don't really have an opinion. And here was your reply
Bryoncunningham, does it matter which is true? I think not. To each his own. None of this discussion matters much to me. I am merely stating my experiences. When you say
does it matter which is true? I think not
you seem to be saying that the question of whether fuse direction can have audible effects doesn't matter. To say something doesnt matter is to imply that there are things that DO matter, but this isnt one of them. Which is why I wrote
Does it matter? It matters if you're interested in the question of whether fuse direction has audible effects. It doesn't matter in the way that unemployment matters, or climate change matters, or global poverty matters. How that grossly misrepresents you is a mystery. Maybe you can identify exactly how it grossly misrepresents you, and you will have my apology. Until then, I will assume that it fairly represents you, and that you didnt like what you saw. What I saw what a person who was trying to end a conversation because it led to the expression of views different from his own. That happens all the time around here. In fact, you and I have had a total of three conversations on Agon and it has happened in two of them. The first time, you said this
I think the entire discussion is largely irrelevant as people will buy what they like and can afford. The entire discussion is largely irrelevant sounds a lot like None of this discussion matters much to me. They both sound like a person who is trying to end a conversation. Perhaps you will think I am again grossly misrepresenting what you said. I think your comments speak for themselves. Moving on
Does the fruitiness of the wine matter; does the fuel economy of various cars matter to you; etc. If this is intended to be a clarification of your position about what matters and what doesnt, I can tell you that it clarifies nothing. I dont even see what the two things you mentioned wine and fuel economy have in common. From there your post gets increasingly bizarre
Obviously, you don't think others' experiences with fuses matters. I value others' experiences
Let me get this straight. Its ME who doesnt think other peoples experiences with fuses matter. Where did you get that from? Was it from my comment that...
I tend to take audiophiles' listening impressions at face value, unless I have a good reason not to. Sometimes I have a good reason. But most of the time, I recognize that he was there in the room and I wasn't, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he heard what he heard. I said that in this very thread, along with a number of other comments that reveal that I do in fact value others' experiences. The idea that my comments suggest otherwise is preposterous, as anyone who has read this thread will plainly see. Also, your characterization of me reminds me of something... a phrase... Oh yes, it grossly misrepresents me. And now we go from the bizarre to the surreal. Your comment that... I value others' experiences, but mainly I post to share my experiences
Lets leave aside for the moment that this statement is a self-contradiction. Instead, I will ask you, does a person who values others' experiences, as you claim to, write this... None of this discussion matters much to me. Does a person who values others' experiences write this...
what I find useless is your posts and those posting meaningless comments. That condemnation of other people's posts appears just three sentences after your claim that you value others experiences. That is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance. And now for the coup de grace
I knew full-well that the cockroaches would come out of the walls when I posted my initial comment. Thems fightin words. Would you be so kind as to identify the cockroaches on this thread? You of course intend me to be among them. But the other cockroaches would probably like to know how you feel about them. Especially in light of the fact that you value their experiences. Bryon |
Tbg wrote: "None of this discussion matters much to me. I am merely stating my experiences"
Tbg, It is discussion forum. If discussion does not matter to you then perhaps fuse REVIEW would be a better format? Once discussion started (with your participation) it would be polite IMHO to avoid such comments. |
Bryoncunningham, you grossly misrepresent what I said. We are talking about tastes here. Does the fruitiness of the wine matter; does the fuel economy of various cars matter to you; etc. Also I am not arguing that what we discuss here does matter to some of us. Obviously, you don't think others' experiences with fuses matters. I value others' experiences, but mainly I post to share my experiences, but I expect only some will find them valuable. Your experiences have not be valuable to you; fine.
Yes, I said "this discussion" suggesting all of it irrelative to my initial post. I erred, what I find useless is your posts and those posting meaningless comments. I knew full-well that the cockroaches would come out of the walls when I posted my initial comment. I have had private comments, which are now awkward on Audiogon, sharing their experiences with fuses. |
05-07-12: Tbg
Bryoncunningham, does it matter which is true? I think not. Does it matter? It matters if you're interested in the question of whether fuse direction has audible effects. It doesn't matter in the way that unemployment matters, or climate change matters, or global poverty matters. But then again, neither does anything we discuss on this site. Whether something matters depends on what you think is worth talking about. Apparently you don't think fuses are worth talking about... None of this discussion matters much to me. Wait a second. Aren't you the one who started this conversation? Bryon |
But that does not mean that parts which measure different in some respect will necessarily sound different, which was my initial point. As I said, it depends on the amount of the difference, and on the design of the component in which the part is used. And of course on the type of part, the function it performs in the particular design, and on what parameter is being measured. Agreed, plus associate components in the system ... endless possibilities. I'm ONLY sharing my experiences and NOT trying to convince anybody anything. |
Even if parts from different manufacturer that measure the same, will sound different in most cases. Agreed, of course. But that does not mean that parts which measure different in some respect will necessarily sound different, which was my initial point. As I said, it depends on the amount of the difference, and on the design of the component in which the part is used. And of course on the type of part, the function it performs in the particular design, and on what parameter is being measured. Regards, -- Al |
Bryoncunningham, does it matter which is true? I think not. To each his own. None of this discussion matters much to me. I am merely stating my experiences. |
Why raise the point in the article if the measurements are less than tolerance level? Several reasons come to mind: 1)As I and Kijanki indicated, whether or not a given tolerance for a given parameter is sonically significant will depend on the design of the specific component in which it is used. 2)For a specific component design, a specific part, and a specific parameter, the line separating tolerances that might be sonically significant from those that are overkill will often be a gray area, about which opinions can differ. Obviously the designer of the particular component is in the best position to make those judgments (which is not to say that he or she will necessarily make them correctly). 3)Perhaps most significantly, my perception has been that it is EXTREMELY common for audio-related white papers and marketing literature to cite and describe technical differences without addressing in a meaningful way whether or not those differences are QUANTITATIVELY significant. Regards, -- Al |
Every electrical part in every component has specified and/or measurable ranges of variation ("tolerances") for numerous electrical parameters, and measurable differences will exist even between two parts of the same type that were manufactured at the same time by the same manufacturer. That applies to transistors, tubes, integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors, diodes, inductors, transformers, fuses, etc. A good design will minimize or eliminate sensitivity to those differences, within the range over which they can be expected to occur. Even if parts from different manufacturer that measure the same, will sound different in most cases. A Sovtek tube will sound different from a Amperex? Mundorf and Duelund cap? Possibly a Radio Shack fuse and HiFi Tuning in some components/systems?? |
|
Marakanetz, don't forget that for Russian Orthodox fuse should always point to the east while for Muslims direction of Mecca is pretty much mandatory. |
Every electrical part in every component has specified and/or measurable ranges of variation ("tolerances") Why raise the point in the article if the measurements are less than tolerance level? |
