Fuses that matter.

Hey with all this continuing banter about nothing.When do you guys have time to LISTEN to the components you know so well, let alone tweek them

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit ― W.C. Fields

Sorry, Geoff. I'd consider that a form of obfuscation so it does not seem appropriate to me. You are much better suited to the task than me. I'd recommend picking a specific topic per thread not 9 seemingly random ones at once for best results.

Mapman wrote,

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

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

Geoff, MD

"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."

Absolutely. Start up some appropriate threads and lets chat.

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

GEoff,

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

But I am always glad to provide a good laugh!

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

Science Fiction.

Machina Dynamica.

Has there ever been a more natural pairing?

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

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

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

Geoff - Your defense of Sophistry was neat. Regrettably, it was also an act of Sophistry.

A Sophist has no allegiance to the truth. A Sophist teaches people how to manipulate, how to evade, how to deceive. And he charges them for it.

I propose we euthanize this thread and donate its body to Science. It will be our gift to Posterity.

Scratch that. We should charge them for it.

Bryon

Geoff,
You wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

So I began to look around and it seems controversy follows where ever you go. That's fine, to each his own.

Then I began thinking about your statement labeling yourself a troll, later claiming it to be all in good fun; however oft' times the truth be told in jest!
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.

For the record I do believe sound can be effected by different variables. But mind over matter Geoff? Really..?

Don't normally get involved in discussions like these but this one is the exception.

Apologies if this has been stated in this thread before but I wasn't going to read it again to see if it was.

Best,

Dave

This thread has become "weirder than a bucket of hair". So that means I am cutting out. Tom

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

Geoff -- Your energy must be flagging, because those were some feeble responses. They're not even interesting enough to analyze and discredit. Coming from me, that's saying something. What I will say is that, if you haven't read my last post, you should, with particular attention to the passages on Sophistry.

By your own admission, Geoff, trouble seems to follow you around. That would make most people wonder if the trouble was somehow coming from themselves. Not you.

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.

Bryon

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

Chad

No I suppose I put that to the side. The magnet makes a huge improvement especially on the AC side of things. I have the magnets thru out my system. 3 in each amp 1 in each sub 1 in the pre amp and 1 in the transport. The DAC has a blade fuse like that in a car...that has more substance than the usual ware. I lent a friend a couple of magnets for his system just to mess with him. The dynamic balance was so skewed to one side he had to move his listening position way off center. He ordered some right then. Maybe the single greatest improvement I have made except for mechanical grounding schemes and subbing crap resistors with Vishay Z-foils.

Enter at your own risk. I know my system inside and out. All my electronics are the same over the course of many years. Of course all the components have been modded several times with more extreme parts. But all the gear is super stable and have never blown a fuse or a circuit breaker which resides in my listening room. Oh the system sounds better since I removed the front cover from the breaker box. Easy to do an AB with a couple witnesses present that quick.. its on its off..Looked at your system and I know some folks who designed some of your products.

The system is only on when I am awake and present.

Tom

Thank you, Lacee for your kind words.

My amazement is that we are arguing about a device that costs less than 100 bucks.

That irony isn't lost on me. But as I'm sure you're aware, this thread isn't really about fuses, at least not any more. It's about Reality, IMO, and three entirely different attitudes toward it…

1. Reality = the world and everything in it
2. Reality = my mind alone
3. Reality = my mind + the minds of other people

…or put another way…

1. The Realist
2. The Solipsist
3. The Sophist

These three categories have been around at least as far back as ancient Greece. Don't worry, I’m not going to launch into the history of philosophy. I’ll limit my comments to what, IMO, is happening on this thread...

What’s happening is that The Realist and the Solipsist and the Sophist are at war. It's a fight that started long before them, and that will outlive them. And it’s not merely academic. These conflicting attitudes toward Reality shape a huge array of individual behaviors and cultural forces. I talked about that at length in this post on 6/8. In it, I framed things in terms of Dogmatism and Obscurantism, but it's easy to see that Dogmatism is a *de facto* form of Solipsism and Obscurantism is a *de facto* form of Sophistry.

Whereas the Realist knows that Reality is mostly outside his control, the Solipsist and the Sophist act as though Reality can be controlled by thoughts, hopes, wishes, fantasies. This is the essence of Magical Thinking.

The loose connection that Solipsists have to Reality can be seen in the Dogmatist’s hostile resistance to opposing views on it. The loose connection that Sophists have to Reality can be see in the Obscurantist’s flagrant disregard for it.

The Solipsist needs to convince only HIMSELF to feel vindicated in his sense of Reality. The Sophist needs to convince OTHER PEOPLE to feel vindicated in his sense of Reality.

The principal thing the Solipsist gains from his attitude toward Reality is the illusion of control over it, which can be a great source of comfort. The principal thing the Sophist gains from his attitude toward Reality is control over the minds of other people, which can be a great source of personal gain.

Because of his inclination toward Magical Thinking, the Solipsist is the Sophist's primary victim. Because of his allegiance to a Reality outside himself, the Realist is the Sophist's primary enemy.

This fight happens every day, both here on Audiogon and out there where it counts.

Bryon

Theaudiotweak,

In all the above excitement you probably missed my post with a question on 061012.

"Forgive my ignorance, but do you replace a fuse with a powerful magnet?

I have used various cables which use magnets for shielding & have found them to be excellent. If I understand you correctly, you put the nickel or whatever theses magnets are made of in the path rather than the fuse?"

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

Thanks so much for the reprints. Now everyone can read them a second time. Tom

Bryon that was a great response.

Reading it now, after I started the why do we argue post, summed up what I have been trying to say in a most elegant manner.

My amazement is that we are arguing about a device that costs less than 100 bucks.

It's not out of reach for anyone in this hobby.
Certainly not as out of reach as lets's say an MBL speaker and some Soulution gear is.

Really?If the fuse cost $1000.00 I would understand.

I've had first hand experience being ganged up on and ridiculed.Then fighting back and getting the upper hand with a few choice phrases,always followed by attempts of childish humour from the wounded.

I know that the cost of the most highly rated audiophile gear is outlandish and has created some bad feelings about the hobby.
At one time, such top flight gear was affordable and even I had some of the top TAS and Phile rated gear.

But we are talking chump change here.

You've hit the nail Bryon, it's not about the cost, or the fuse, it's all about who wants to be King of the Hill.

GEoff,

No I mean't what I said, not your spin on it. What could be clearer?

You're free to fire back but please do not put your thoughts in my mouth. Work on getting the facts straight!

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?

06-10-12: Theaudiotweak
And if you look at a virtual system photo and in that pictorial is displayed proudly and prominently a in wall giant resonance collection chamber [a TV] a virtual time machine of phase errors and noise, a sure cause of time release headaches and in the picture of that TV display you see a mirror image of the proud owner reflecting at his desk, recording his self image at his listening position and behind that hot spot is a row of windows that reside over his shoulders. A picture of science at rest. Golly gee, sure example of someone who should be giving advice and reasoning on the viability of fuses making a marked change in anyone's audio system based on that reflective beam box, laser like and bouncing back between his eyes ....That is a standard of reference to judge what?

I'm going to make a suggestion, Audiotweak. Why don't you spend some time in the minor league practicing your swing before you take one at me. The post above is amateur hour. To wit...

...in that pictorial is displayed proudly and prominently a in wall giant resonance collection chamber [a TV] a virtual time machine of phase errors and noise, a sure cause of time release headaches and in the picture of that TV display you see a mirror image of the proud owner reflecting at his desk…

You seem to know a lot about me. Has the real stalker been revealed? Quick question: How in the world could you know whether I’m the kind of person who’s “proud of his TV”? By the fact that it hangs on the wall, like hundreds of thousands of similar TV’s in households everywhere? Talk about a leap of logic. I hope you don't get placed on any juries.

Anyone who's read my posts over the years already knows what I'm about to say... I’m not the kind of person who is proud of a TV, because I'm not mentally 15 years old. I’m proud of my wife. I’m proud of my best friend. I'm proud of some of my professional accomplishments. I’m proud of the work I did in psychotherapy. Hell, I'm proud of my dog. Oh, and I’m proud that I stand up to bullies like you. I am NOT proud that I own a TV and that it hangs on the wall. It's ridiculous that I even have to say that. Moving on...

In my system description, where you gleaned your insightful observations about my listening room, the first sentence of the second paragraph reads…

A customized sound blanket hangs in front of the TV when listening to music.

You can see a picture of it here. In addition to which, the windows at the back of the room have shades of considerable thickness, which are drawn closed when listening to music. I also have 8 large acoustical absorption panels on the ceiling and 2 large diffusors at the back of the room. And there's a thick rug on the floor. Does that sound like the "reflective pinball machine" you described?

Most of what I just said is listed on my system page. I suggest you take a moment to prepare before suiting up to play this game. And if you DID see those things on my system page, then your allegiance to the truth is comparable to the person you are implicitly defending. And we haven't even gotten to the real point...

Golly gee, sure example of someone who should be giving advice and reasoning on the viability of fuses making a marked change in anyone's audio system based on that reflective beam box, laser like and bouncing back between his eyes ....That is a standard of reference to judge what?

I have never, not on this thread or any other, claimed that my room is a model of good acoustics. I have never, not on this thread or any other, claimed that my room, or my system, is a “standard of reference.” Suggesting otherwise is a straw man of me, and one that wouldn't convince a child.

I’m afraid you’ve sacrificed your credibility on your very first move. You have as much chance now as you would sacrificing your queen on your first move. Audiotweak, I suggest you go back to tweaking. This isn’t your game.

Oh, and one last thing, which should be painfully obvious: Attacking someone for the quality of his system is utterly juvenile. Ahh… it just occurred to me. THAT’S why you thought I was proud of my TV. You were projecting your own juvenile priorities.

This projection bug is going around. I better remember to use my hand sanitizer.

Bryon

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.

I know from past experience that the use of the SR Tesla coil sound much better. So I'm anxious to hear their fuses done this way. I even had HiFi Tuning fuses zapped by them which also improved them. No chance of getting the Supremes zapped, however.

"I got some of the new Synergistic Research fuses in. I may get back about them, if you boys behave."

As a matter of fact, fuses from reputable companies that specialize in a wide variety of power quality solutions other than fuses are the ones that are most likely to catch my interest.

I got some of the new Synergistic Research fuses in. I may get back about them, if you boys behave.

You guys sure seem to have a lot of idle time on your hands. (insert silly smiley here)

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.

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.

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.

06-10-12: Geoffkait
Bryon, another hilarious post....of course I was joking by calling myself a troll.

Of course that's the card you're going to play. It's the only one left in your hand. But the hand is over. You went all in and lost. To remind folks...

06-09-12: Geoffkait
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.

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.

You are SUBSTANTIATING the idea that you are a Troll. The fact that you weren’t allowed to post here for four years is EVIDENCE that you are a Troll. It's very difficult to believe that your remark was ironic when you go on to provide an excellent reason to interpret it LITERALLY. And adding to that…

…all this angst and hand wringing has me a little puzzled. I wonder, IS IT SOMETHING I SAID? HA HA HA[emphasis added]

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.

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.

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.

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...

TOPIC #1: FUSE DIRECTION
On 4/27, my first post appeared on the thread. My last paragraph was about fuse direction. Your first post was 2 POSTS AFTER ME. It was also about fuse direction.

TOPIC #2: EXPERTISE
On 4/28, I said that “the intuition of experts, has been wrong innumerable times.” In the VERY NEXT POST, YOU SAID: “the argument that "innumerable" people, even experts, are wrong is that there only needs to be one person, expert or not, that is right to prove the thing works.”

TOPIC #3: EXPLANATIONS
On 4/29, I listed whatever explanations I could find from the web for the audible effects of fuses. The NEXT DAY, YOU COMMENTED on my list.

TOPIC #4: MY FIRST A/B EXPERIMENT
On 5/7, in a follow up to my first fuse experiment, I commented that, during my experiment, I could not hear any differences with fuse direction. 2 POSTS AFTER, YOU SPECULATED that masking effects might be the reason I didn’t hear it.

TOPIC #5: ROGER’S COMMENTS
On 5/11, I commented on Roger’s observations about fuse measurements. 2 POSTS AFTER, YOU DID THE SAME.

I’m getting bored. Let’s just skip ahead to the point where things turned ugly...

TOPIC: COMPARATIVE FUSE TESTING
On 6/6, I posted a reply to Talk2me about the comparative fuse testing I did during my two experiments. 2 POSTS AFTER, YOU COMMENTED, in effect, that comparative fuse testing was a waste of time.

Let’s recap...

In our first 5 interactions, YOU FOLLOWED ME EVERY TIME.

In our most recent interaction, YOU FOLLOWED ME AGAIN.

So the suggestion that I’m stalking you is patently absurd. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to fall for that.

On the other hand, if someone were to suggest that YOU are stalking ME… well, the evidence above speaks for itself. There should be a word for a situation where someone attributes his own behavior to another person... Oh yeah, there is: PROJECTION.

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

Bryon

Of course non of these facts regarding minor tweaks will be relevant when my funky little fuses hit the market. THey will simply be just awesome and not minor in any way! Just wait and see/hear :).

Let's talk about "minor" tweaks for a minute.

1) by definition the effects of a minor tweak will be minor or subtle probably at best.

2) some minor tweaks may in fact do nothing. THese have less downside than tweaks that actually do something. That something could be judged better or worse.

3) Tweaks that do nothing have less potential downside. Therefore, fewer are likely to be disappointed.

"Not sure how/why you would take issue with this. "

Well, actually I do in that you are a vendor of tweaks that at worse probably do nothing which is good enough for many I suppose.

"Is't it a little premature to write fuses off in light of all the positive press and customer testimony?"

Geof, if you read my posts, you'll see that I do not write fuses off. I acknowledge that they might make a difference. I just put them way down on the list of potential tweaks I would make just to improve sound.

IF my gear does not sound right and I isolate a problem to a particular piece, then a fuse replacement is probably something I would consider. I would replace with a good quality fuse recommended by the maker most likely. It may or may not be an "audiphile" fuse. If the new fuse works, I will loose no sleep thereafter until the next "real" issue pops up.

Sorry, I have better things to do than continuously tweak in hopes of better sound with little or no basis for decision making other than some things worked for some.

Others may differ in their priorities. More power to them!

Not sure how/why you would take issue with this. There are many out there willing to try the tweak of the month. They will probablly end up happy as well as long as the result is not negative. Not to hard to accomplish with fuses IMHO.

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?

I am not an EE ( though I do have expertise in other areas of engineering) but what AL says makes sense. I would tend to think that if a fuse did make too much difference in sound quality that this might be an indicator of certain design elements lacking elsewhere.

Just because every component in the signal path can have an effect on the sound does not mean it should.

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.

The audiotweak,

Forgive my ignorance, but do you replace a fuse with a powerful magnet?

I have used various cables which use magnets for shielding & have found them to be excellent. If I understand you correctly, you put the nickel or whatever theses magnets are made of in the path rather than the fuse?

Tom, I'm not sure that I understand your last two posts, but I believe that the implication of what you are saying is that any effects of the AC line fuse on the current flowing through it will be directly and identically reflected in the current that is sent out to the speakers.

If that is what you mean, I would beg to differ. As I said in my post dated 5-31-12:

... the effects of power anomalies on what ultimately goes into the speakers (or at least those effects that are explainable based on generally recognized science) will be greatly reduced by filtering and smoothing that is provided in the power supply, by filtering that is (or at least should be) provided at or near all circuit points where the outputs of the power supply are used, by the power supply rejection ratio of the circuit stages that directly process the signal, and in many components by voltage regulator devices and circuits.

Also, the visual differences that you observed on the RTA do not necessarily imply audible significance, especially if all frequencies are affected equally (for example, if a gain change resulted from a slight difference in the voltage drops across the fuses), and of course depending also on the magnitude of the differences.

Regards,
-- Al

Hard to say as it's over my head. I believe someone already posted here a link to measurements that show a difference.

BTW, I have practically no technical expertise, yet alone a working knowledge of these things. Just my own ears and the curiosity that came with them.

All the best,
Nonoise

I have not sourced or measured the variations across a fuse either nor have I attempted that measurement yet. I have measured the before and after responses of an audio chassis on different ground planes at the same distance at the same frequency and the same amplitude and there was a visual difference on a RTA. Would the reaction of a current passing thru a mono-filament be different or much different than that passing thru a tube regulator which is after the passage of a fuse/monofilament ? Tom

i stand semi-corrected as I haven't yet seen the differences in frequency responses before and after a change of fuses.....:-)

All the best,
Nonoise

A charge is always seeking ground even if it is thru a 32 gauge wire a hunk of lead or a hanging berry of sorbothane. The key is how long it will take that charge to get to the other side and how much of its original content arrives intact on that left side of the road. We sense this ..some do. You can see the influences of vibrational energy across the grounding plain of a electro mechanical device with the aid of a RTA.. it can be seen in the frequency response.

I agree that we sometimes neglect the fact that we hear through our skin, cartilage, and bone in order to complete the 'picture', if you will. That was never the subject of this thread though it can come into play if it were operating at the same level of a change of fuses. It isn't.

If we were to somehow limit our hearing to just what enters the ears (like a microphone), the changing of a fuse wouldn't be appreciated any less (or more) than if all the additional membranes were working with them.

I believe it's on another level.

It's a nuance that can't be measured but heard and appreciated. Like changing a cap or resistor. The volume doesn't change, the measurements don't change, it's the flavor, tone, air and focus.

I'd like to see what measured differences there would be, on paper, before and after a change of fuse(s) compared to what we actually hear. I'd bet that the measurements would be the same but we would hear an actual difference.

Or I'm completely wet.

All the best,
Nonoise

See me, feel me, touch me.. whats that say about auditory response...nothing. But those are the other means by which we hear and communicate. When a violinist puts the instrument to their chin are they hearing only with their ears or are they sensing the music thru their bones and their skull? When we listen to music in the field how do we absorb that vibrational influence? Thru our flesh and bones. Perhaps means some people may be physically absent when they listen. Tom

I understand you point but I simply don't agree with it and the analogy of the pinball machine- it's simply too absurd. I don't have bat ears and the difference was immediately apparent.

Given the treatment that has been done before the wall receptacle (which has already been addressed), the effects of the fuses can be greatly lessened.

I also pointed out, earlier, that two different integrateds I have had vastly different results: a rather large one with one unit and a very small one with another. I think one was simply a better made unit (same fuse types).

Add the quality of a well made unit and the quality of the power before the wall and it's easy to see how much less the benefits of a fuse can be. It's still there but not as much as in some other applications. Now compound things with directionality in an already resolving system and all bets are off, at least to my ears with my system.

I know I hear a difference and I have no doubts whatsoever what Bryon hears due to what I just said.

All the best,
Nonoise

And the magnitude of difference heard within a reflective pinball machine would be more or less...or none at all. If you knew how to listen thru all of that maybe one, would be able to decipher the audio code. Ask the Pin Ball Wizard he may know. The difference of these fuse types is not subtle..no more than my dismissal of those who partake here and say there is no basis for difference or that they are unable to hear any. That's their findings..Looking thru a optically challenged Hubble telescope only reflects the glare not the substance. Tom

Taking a look at that virtual system leads me to think that even though there is a large screen TV between the speakers and windows behind the listener and one to the side, this is pretty much a standard room, give or take, that one must deal with and to make the best of. Every listeners room is different and actually no better unless one can afford a dedicated room, optimized for listening.

From my own experience, I realized the differences in fuses without addressing the large screen TV between my speakers, not to mention having no treatment behind me (save for a large sectional where I sit and a bare wall with no treatment) and a whole wall of windows to my immediate right so there is something else at play here.

Yes, addressing reflections would help any system but I don't see how they would conflict or overshadow the results of changing fuses as the results were of a different nature, and magnitude, at least for me.

All the best,
Nonoise

And if you look at a virtual system photo and in that pictorial is displayed proudly and prominently a in wall giant resonance collection chamber [a TV] a virtual time machine of phase errors and noise, a sure cause of time release headaches and in the picture of that TV display you see a mirror image of the proud owner reflecting at his desk, recording his self image at his listening position and behind that hot spot is a row of windows that reside over his shoulders. A picture of science at rest. Golly gee, sure example of someone who should be giving advice and reasoning on the viability of fuses making a marked change in anyone's audio system based on that reflective beam box, laser like and bouncing back between his eyes ....That is a standard of reference to judge what? And then there is me guilty of my own giant run on sentences. figure it out your selves. Tom