Something For The Fuse Guys ...

Because no company that vends in snake oil is big enough or has deep enough pockets do even begin to warrant the time and effort of a law firm working on contingency fees to even consider touching this. The larger the company you will note the more careful they are in their claim. Now if someone was injured or suffered severe property damage from a product that has not undergone adequate safety testing ... that would be a different ball game.


clearthink903 posts10-21-2019 2:28pmwolf_garcia"All nonsense with expectation bias driving new users to the fraudulently misrepresented Magic Fuses,"

Fraud! Fraud! Fraud! Once again we see charges of illegal activity that would delight anyone dedicated, sincere, or intelligent enough to pursue a typical American "Class Action Suit" against those perpetrating this vile, predatory, unspeakable deception on the gullible, uneducated, and naive why is it though that no one ever pursues such a claim through proper established, legal, regulatory channels perhaps it is because they themselves represent the fraud? I am just asking not making accusation!  

75% of the world believes in a deity, pick any of those people and between 50% and 99% of that 75% thinks their deity is a delusion. 100% of those 75% have absolutely no verifiable proof that a deity exists.

Somewhere around 50-100 million American's believe the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, though there is 0 proof that is true.

Homeopathic medicine is a $400+ million/year business in America alone, even though not once has it shown to have any positive benefit.

2% of Americans, or 7,000,000 people are convinced the Earth is flat. 

Millions bought V.W. Golfs/Rabbits in the 80's/90's under the impression they were reliable cars. There was never any objective evidence this was true. They were even less reliable than North American cars. They were just popular.

But perhaps most apt is the size of the Penis size pill enhancer market is estimated at $50-100/million per year ... and guess what, they don't do anything.

You are trying to plead to authority, use "mass" rules, and any number of logical fallacies all at once. 

Nope Geoffy boy, they are perfect examples. You were using a bandwagon fallacy. 100,000 people have jumped on the fuse bandwagon, therefore it is a great idea. You are also using a blind loyalty argument and a confirmation bias with a bit of circular reasoning thrown in for good measure. My examples address all those items.

$400+ million / year spent on Homeopathic and many, just like fuses, claim it works wonders.

Oh, my VW Rabbit is fantastically reliable, I mean just look how many are on the road.

The Homeopathy argument, like fuses, breaks down as soon as it is exposed to controlled testing.

With 100,000 fuses sold, surely you can point to 3, 4, 10 controlled listening tests ... you know multiple subjects, double blind, AB or better ABX controlled? ... No? .... but you probably have a 100,000 excuses why not. Am I right?

How are those penis pills working out? :-)


10-21-2019 6:06pmYour examples make no sense in the context of audio. No offense intended. In fact your examples are excellent examples of logical fallacies.

Debunk would imply that they have ever (and I do mean EVER) been proven to have any positive impact. Like I said, YOU will not be able to show even one documented, controlled listening test that indicates any positive benefit of a high priced fuse in an AC line. Why? ..... because they don't exist. People regularly offer the sellers of these fuses bets, significant money .... if they can show they make an improvement (heck even a change). If they are so dramatic, it should be easy peasy. So why don't they exist?

10-21-2019 7:22pmPseudo skeptics have been using religion, placebo effect, UFOs, alternative medicine, Wine tasting, pharma double-blind testing and other ridiculous examples to try to debunk audiophile devices like fuses, wire directionality and many other controversial things for years. You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk.

As does the number of people following religion, mainly due to high birth rates in highly religious societies (outside the US). As does the amount spent on Homepathic remedies. As does the amount spent on penis pills.

I would not be proud of this fact.




geoffkait
At least my estimated number of fancy fuses sold continues to go up. 🤡

paullk
So just hypotheticaly wouldn't say swaping the fuses with solid copper bypasses net you the best sound? Assuming there is a large gain here, you could then swap different fuses in and out to see which ones affect the sound the least. 

YOU Can't Handle the Truth! ...okay, you probably can, but let's start with background.

Most audiophile equipment uses linear power supplies. Not all, but most. Let's stick to power amps though ... and most use linear supplies.

In a linear power supply, there is only conduction between the AC line and the storage capacitors of the supply for a relatively small portion of the AC waveform. In North America, at 120 times/second, the AC line is contributing power to the capacitors for somewhere between say 0 - 2.5msecs out of 16.6msecs. 0 when the volume is low, 2.5 when it is high. The 2.5 is variable based around static load of the amplifier, post regulation, amplifier feedback to reject power supply noise, etc. It could be more, but in high quality amps with enormous capacitor banks, it is often quite small.

So now let's throw in the concept of power supply rejection ratio. This is how much of the ripple on the AC power supply ends up in audio output going to the speakers. It varies a lot from amp to amp, but in general, it is highest at low frequencies and lowest at high frequencies. What that means is the amplifier is usually pretty tolerant to "noise/ripple" in the power supply at base frequencies, but sensitive at high frequencies. So, 1 or 2 volts or ripple at 120Hz on the power supply caps may be totally inaudible, but if you had 1-2 volts at 2KHz, their would be an audible buzz.

The power supply for the high power rails is often quite simple ... a fuse, some EMI caps/inductors, and a big transformer followed by diodes and those caps. Those diodes turn on/off really quick, and that causes high frequency noise. The noise a factor of current and how fast the current transitions from on to off, which is a factor of how fast the voltage transitions across that diode, which is a factor of the bandwidth of the circuit comprising those capacitors, transformer, EMI components, and fuse.

What reduces bandwidth? ... Resistance.  Resistance can reduce the noise of the diode transitions which reduces the high frequency noise where the audio circuit is most susceptible. 

Nothing is ever this simple, but the simple answer is no, a wire is not always better and in many cases may be worse, especially in lower power equipment. That resistance not only reduces noise in the component, but also reduces noise from the component getting out onto the AC line.

Steps in the Scientific Process:

• Step 0: UNDERSTAND what the scientific process is.
• Step 0.1: Learn how to design an experiment.
• Step 0.2: Learn how to test for bias and how to eliminate

If anyone, I mean anyone actually did a controlled listening test, not even measurements, but an actual controlled listening test (which is double blind by the way), then may, just maybe there would be no ridicule when one claims enormous improvements .... just like the other enormous improvements all the other tweaks did. I hate to think that the system started out like ... 



rodman999994,102 posts10-21-2019 9:49pmSteps in the Scientific Process:

• Step 1: Ask a question. ie: Can fancy fuses possibly be of benefit/change anything?
• Step 2: Do background research. ie: Read reviews/feedback/empirical evidence.
• Step 3: Construct a hypothesis. ie: Opinions vary widely, but- everyone’s right.
• Step 4: TEST your hypothesis by doing an EXPERIMENT. ie: ACTUALLY TRY THEM.
• Step 5: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. ie: Did I hear a difference, good or bad?
• Step 6: Share your results on AudiogoN. caveat: If positive; be prepared for scorn and ridicule, for being so foolish, as to actually go through the Scientific Process, instead of being convinced by another’s theories.

No it does not drive us crazy because it is pure supposition not at all supported by fact. It is also a claim that you are not willing to put your money behind.

P.S. A double blind ABX listening test has NO measurements. It is purely a subjective listening test ... implemented with objective methodology. You call some of use "measurement types" but when the rubber meets the road, why are "non measurement types" never willing to validate their super-human subjective abilities.

You are right, I don't believe your claims, but given the astounding improvements in sound that are always claimed, surely you can easily repeat this by identifying when / if the change was made ... when the change is made without your knowledge. YOU are claiming the ability to do exactly that below, so why can you only create that in internet forums, but not in the real world?

p.s. I could easily make changes to your car and you would not know even something substantial like letting a bit of air out of the tires.

cleeds2,473 posts10-22-2019 11:43amrodman99999

... Hours spent in a car familiarize it’s owner with the overall sound of it’s operation. Slight perturbations/changes in those sounds, will usually go unnoticed by an infrequent passenger, but will(generally) be obvious to the owner. My system’s presentation has aspects, with which I’m intimately familiar, when reference material(call that a, "control") is played. When something(fuse, cable, outlet, vibration control, whatever) is replaced, and that changes an aspect of my system’s presentation; it’s going to be much more noticeable to my ears, than anyone else’s ...

That is a very good point and absolutely true. It drives some of the measurementalists here crazy to acknowledge that simple fact, as evidenced two posts above.

They will also steer you away from things that don't improve your listening experience. 

Or we work in the industry and actively use the methodology to improve our products without putting money into the cost of the product that has no value .... 


cleeds2,472 posts10-22-2019 10:35amgeoffkait

It was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test. 

It’s unfortunate that it’s virtually impossible to reasonably discuss controlled double-blind testing here. Its advocates seem to suffer from nearly religious fervor, which is an obstacle to conversation.

Such tests have very limited value to the typical audiophile. Those who profess the greatest interest in these tests often seem to have a very limited understanding of not only proper test protocols, but how to interpret the results of such tests. So the discussions lead nowhere.

What I’ve observed over the years is this: Those who most noisily proclaim the necessity and value of controlled double-blind testing very rarely conduct such tests themselves. Why is that? I suspect many references to such tests are just red herrings.

You will find I am not the one making the extra-ordinary claim. Given how drastic the sound improvement claims are, how come this is never reproduced in controlled listening tests. All these manufacturers, all these trade shows, all these audio magazines, not one ... literally not one controlled listening test that clearly shows expensive cables outperforming decent, but low cost cables. People have even been willing to put money on the line, serious money, that they are willing to lose, if a manufacturer can clearly show their cable makes a noticeable difference. Not better, just different. What is the response ..... crickets.

I have done ad-hoc testing with friends (proper blind testing), as well as participated in testing with audio clubs (again proper blind testing), and low and behold, there is never a difference. These tests usually happen when someone says "this made a huge difference" ... and then they are shown, no it didn't, you just thought it did. Queue the claims of "system not resolving enough" or "you don't know how to listen" .... 




 Report thiscleeds2,469 posts10-22-2019 8:51amroberttcan

...YOU will not be able to show even one documented, controlled listening test that indicates any positive benefit of a high priced fuse in an AC line. Why? ... If they are so dramatic, it should be easy peasy. So why don't they exist?

Please feel free to conduct your own tests, and then share the results with us.
Beware the audio guru.

Double blind ABX .... 



clearthink916 posts10-22-2019 10:12am
roberttcan" in controlled testing, fast switching has resulted in a far higher likelihood of a difference being noted."

I am pleased to see you acknowledge that abx testing has resulted in revealing differences between audio components this is something you and many others seem to like to deny or refute.

Maybe they don't last long because of the people they run into? ... 
cleeds2,477 posts10-22-2019 1:06pmnonoise

Anyone here notice that every so often, someone pops in and spouts off about how well pedigreed and engineered his background is and he then goes off on tangents to demonstrate just how smart he is?

Yup. They usually don't last long. We've seen this before, especially the "put some money into the bet. I am more than willing to do that" kind of taunt.
Beware the audio guru. They're easy to spot.

I have it in writing folks, you DO need to do quick switching in order for a listening test to have any validity. 

Belief would imply leap of faith, i.e. no proper proof. That is not the same as a validated outcome based on controlled (and repeatable) testing. 


cleeds2,470 posts10-22-2019 9:10amroberttcan

Given how drastic the sound improvement claims are, how come this is never reproduced in controlled listening tests.

Again, please feel free to conduct your own tests, and then share the results with us.

Conducting a proper, scientifically valid double-blind test of an audio fuse would be a tricky undertaking, because you need quick switching for that type of test to have any validity at all. You’d probably need to have two identical components - with the fuse being the only difference - and then switch between the two components. I’m not sure what the point of the exercise would be, though. Your beliefs are already established. 

Contrary to misguided belief, double-blind AB(x) testing does not stipulate fast switching. The speed at which switching occurs is completely up to those conducting the test. However, in controlled testing, fast switching has resulted in a far higher likelihood of a difference being noted.

cleeds2,471 posts10-22-2019 9:56amroberttcan

I have it in writing folks, you DO need to do quick switching in order for a listening test to have any validity. 

This is completely mistaken and not at all what I wrote:

... you need quick switching for 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 of test to have any validity

If you want to play "gotcha" regarding blind testing here, you'll have to find another fo

This concept of "I know my system intimately and would notice any change" was blown out of the water a few years back when a bunch of audiophiles (high end) were given a box, either a placebo (straight wire) or a device that injected serious distortion into their system (on the order of 2.5%). That box was to be placed in their system, and they could add/remove the box, leave it in or out as long as they wanted, etc. and they just had to report back whether they got the placebo or the distortion box. The end result is that this experienced, high end audiophiles couldn't tell if they had the distortion box or not. Their results were no better than random guesses. When the same test was done under controlled conditions (blind testing, fast changes), untrained listeners quickly picked up the distortion adding box reliably.

The real reality is room humidity, our mood, our at that moment health, the stressors of the day, the exact spot we are sitting, etc. have far more impact on what we perceive than just about any "tweak". The only possible way to separate the "tweak" from all those variables above is to isolate all those variables so that only the tweak is what changes ... that is why rapid switching reveals differences far more reliably than ad-hoc methods.

w.r.t. your car, I could probably take a few PSI (kPa) out of your tires and you would not notice, you certainly would not be sure. However, if I could rapidly change it, you would know right away.

rodman999994,105 posts10-22-2019 10:49amOn another thread, Elizabeth brought up a subject, that is typically ignored in these conversations. ie: Familiarity(with the system being altered/used as a test platform). Hours spent in a car familiarize it’s owner with the overall sound of it’s operation. Slight perturbations/changes in those sounds, will usually go unnoticed by an infrequent passenger, but will(generally) be obvious to the owner. My system’s presentation has aspects, with which I’m intimately familiar, when reference material(call that a, "control") is played. When something(fuse, cable, outlet, vibration control, whatever) is replaced, and that changes an aspect of my system’s presentation; it’s going to be much more noticeable to my ears, than anyone else’s(again: usually, because- there are variables). Einstein theorized/realized(and it bugged him) what The Hubble Space Telescope confirmed, in the 90’s. ie: Around 95% of our universe, is comprised of stuff, no one understands or knows how to measure(but- to which unexplained phenomena point). (https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter) I have no problem, trusting my ears to tell me when/if things have improved in my system’s sound(unexplained phenomena/various controversial means), without knowing the precise mechanism. No one has ever proven(or- categorically disproven) anything, through endless theories, conjecture and rhetoric. Theories are proven through experimentation and measurement. But- you have to know WHAT and HOW to measure. In the case of expanding our musical enjoyment, it starts by listening to something new, if we care enough. Anyone else’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade anyone else(that cares about sound) from experimentation.

You are right, I don't know you. So enlighten me on your involvement in scientifically controlled, double-blind listening tests in audio. I am willing to listen. Are you willing to share enough details for the post to be relevant?

cleeds2,477 posts10-22-2019 12:26pmroberttcan61 posts10-22-2019 12:08pm

No it does not drive us crazy because it is pure supposition not at all supported by fact. It is also a claim that you are not willing to put your money behind.

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know me, and you apparently don't know anything about my involvement with scientifically controlled, double-blind listening tests.

You are right, I don't believe your claims ...

What claims are those?

No, I didn't think of that myself Geoff, you presented that argument, clearly, and repeatedly.

Untrained listeners are able to discern small differences in audio performance in quick AB blind testing better than trained listeners are in uncontrolled situations. That is why the method is used.

Double blind AB(x) tests in audio don't determine whether something is "better" which would rely on aural acuity, but if something is different.


rodman999994,108 posts10-23-2019 7:04amI’m still waiting for someone to, "prove" fancy fuses can’t/won’t/don’t improve one’s listening experience.   OH, WAIT: you can’t.   All I’ve seen/read here, thus far, are theories and subjectivity.   Nothing’s ever been categorically proven by either.   Theories are proven through experimentation & measurement(the Scientific Method).   Again: you have to know what and how to measure, but- there are nothing but theories, in that regard, thus far(IF you’re honest/not brainwashed).   Double-blind listening tests, depend solely on the listeners’ aural acuity(highly subjective).   The ONLY way an audiophile will ever know, if fancy fuses will improve THEIR listening experience, is to experiment/listen on their own, with their own system and ears.  

Published? .... pure comedy gold Gerry, that's pure gold!  I wonder if The Onion is hiring?

geoffkait17,650 posts10-23-2019 11:00ammoops, I published How the Clever Lil Clock ⏰ Works with May and Peter Belt 6 years ago. I published the Definitive Explanation for How the Intelligent Chip Works 15 years ago. And The Story of How The Teleportation Tweak Works more recently. My, how Time flies. Thanks for asking.

The funny thing is nonoise, not one of "strong" advocates of boutique fuses can offer any solid explanation of why a fuse could be better or worse. I mean like literally, I don’t think I have seen any of these so called experts make a claim for it ... (well other than a misunderstanding of how electricity works leading to an erroneous conclusion ... ).

You will probably find the people who are not advocates of boutiques fuses can better articulate how they could make a difference:

- They could have a better surface treatment that offers a better low resistance bond to the fuse holder, and one could claim reduce modulation of the contact resistance from vibration
- They could be lower resistance: Which may make your power amp sound better, but then again it could, likely even would, make your pre-amp and digital player sound worse.
- It could have less thermal modulation (you can actually measure distortion due to thermal modulation of a fuse when pushed hard, about 0.001% - going off memory for speakers. In a power line it would be much less).
- It could have more or less inductance
- If placed over sensitive circuits, it could have more or less shielding and less capacitive coupling into that sensitive circuit
- Installed in one direction, and not the other, it could have a better mechanical/electrical coupling.
- Due to the way the holder is implemented in the equipment, coupled with defects and/or mounting variations of the fuse element in the fuse, the effects of thermal modulation could vary more with the fuse mounted one direction than the other.

And yes, simply taking the fuse in and out would be like sweeping contacts on a switch or plug and can lower resistance, but that could have been done with the low cost OEM switch.

I have seen some pretty crazy explanations for fuses and fuse directionality here and on other forums .... rarely (almost never) real world engineering reasons and never with the effect quantified. All the things I described above are relatively easy to measure and their contribution to the electrical signal determined.

People skilled in the art and honest don't refute that a fuse and its holder is part of either a AC power supply path and/or signal path (speakers). What they are skeptical about, and rightly so, is whether, you have to admit, the significant benefits attributed to boutique fuses is warranted given the difference in the electrical/thermal performance parameters possible between basic fuses and boutique fuses. I have seen articles where people have measured parameters for boutique fuses (well reviewed) and while better than your basic $0.10 OEM fast blow fuse, it was no better than the other $2.00 fuses they tested.

What also creates skepticism is the claim that they are "always" better and while admittedly a lot of amateur and professional reviewers do not make that claim, most do, and with claims of huge performance improvements in all equipment, high and low powered. That simply does not cut the mustard based on how these equipment are designed.

ME





Report thisnonoise5,037 posts10-23-2019 2:11pmIf one were to go through all these fuse threads, they’d espy a glaringly overlooked matter. The naysayers say a fuse has no effect on the sound of an amp and that it’s just there for safety reasons.

They also say that the sound differences heard can be attributed to some microscopic piece of dirt and that simply removing and reinserting the fuse will result in different surface contact and that that is the reason an amp will sound different.

Full stop.

If the fuse is sacrificial and has no impact whatsoever on the sound of an amp, how can a piece of dirt or different surface contact result in a change of sound?

All the best,
Nonoise

Well he started his company right around the time he was busted down to training co-ordinator ... so your theory could hold some weight. But come on, you got to admit those magic pebbles are comedy gold!


mapman16,252 posts10-23-2019 10:43amToo bad Geoff can’t muster up any valid test results at all these days to support his bread and butter hifi theories about fuses, wire direction, Teleportation Tweaks, you name it.

If his supposed methodology at Nasa was at all similar to what he presents here these days, I"m guessing he was canned pronto and found his new comfy home selling made-up, unsupported, theoretical concepts to desperate, gullible hifi enthusiasts with money to burn. 

I know he would be if he performed his current act and worked for me.

You know George, it's rather funny that you constantly plead to authority telling us that you worked at Nasa, FAA, etc.  (though doing what is not clear), and that because of that you are somehow an "expert" or infallible ... well on everything it seems, but when someone brings up a group, made of up actual audio researchers, experts, and others who are viewed by their peers as experts, that that group is suddenly of "no value".


Cognitive dissonance much?

I have to imagine in any blind listening test where the organizers went through all the trouble of training the participants, that the results were of course published. Please share the link with us here. It no doubt would be very informative. 


cleeds2,483 posts10-23-2019 10:21amroberttcan

Untrained listeners are able to discern small differences in audio performance in quick AB blind testing better than trained listeners are in uncontrolled situations. 

That is a very interesting claim. That’s especially so because in most of the the blind listening tests where I’ve participated, organizers included some training for the subjects to help them with the experiment.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I ask because, as you like to state: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Yes, unlike all your claims, it was published.

cleeds2,484 posts10-23-2019 12:42pm

Untrained listeners are able to discern small differences in audio performance in quick AB blind testing better than trained listeners are in uncontrolled situations 

Was that a published study?

Yes, your "claims", as opposed to actual published results. 

I will assume I am right that you don't have an AES membership?

Did a journal search on your name. I came up with exactly 0 peer reviewed articles published by you george ... hmmm.

p.s. AES conference papers are not peer reviewed, AES journal articles are. The AES which has been around since the 40s and the journal are not a pay to publish group. The survive just fine on member dues.



geoffkait17,658 posts10-23-2019 1:31pmYeah, the peer review process. What a scam that is? Give me a break! 

But you do george, that is why you can't stop yourself from responding to my posts ....


geoffkait17,663 posts10-23-2019 2:22pmI think I already answered your question. Don’t get too hung up. 😬 In the town 

I’m from the roads don’t end at the edge of town. It’s not like Pleasantville, where you’re from. There are some places that the road doesn’t go in a circle. There are some places where the road keeps going. Where I come from I don’t need anyone’s approval.

Pure gold Jerry, pure gold!

Is this what you consider reality?  Asking for a friend.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-teleportation-tweak-works-geoff-kait/

Sorry george, I just use good $3-4 dollar fuses, and I get my pebbles from the beach :-) ..... and have equipment with competently designed power supplies.  If you "believe" that aftermarket fuses are great, perhaps you can't afford competently designed equipment? But hey, if you want to donate money to companies, who neither have the knowledge nor the equipment to competently design or test something like a fuse, that is your choice. Why would I stop you. I figure it's karma.

George, george, george .....

George, what has you sad george? Really is calling someone a pinhead appropriate?

The GECOM technologies document is not a proper report of a metrology testing lab, this is purely a marketing document and an auspicious one at that. Let's point out the BS in the document:

1) No listing of equipment is provided, no pictures of test setups, nothing. Just take our word for it on the testing. You and I know, that is not how testing labs operate. Every test has a full equipment list and normally pictures.

2) The resistance difference "claimed" from direction 1 to direction 2 is on the order of 0.0001 to 0.00005 ohms, and the claim in some cases represents 0.05% difference at 2-3 milliohms.  Check out their accuracy page. They can't even measure to that accuracy at those resistances .... and they are claiming to be able to repeat it in both directions?  

3) Copper resistance has a temp coefficient of ~ (3.8* 10^-3)/C, silver similar at room temp. That means a change of 0.38% in resistance value per degree C ... and yet they claim in their report to measure resistance changes to an accuracy of 0.05 - 0.1%  or the change that would occur with a 0.25 celsius temp difference. I am calling BS .. super big time BS. There is 0 chance they temp controlled in that lab (see pictures - not a proper metrology lab) to that accuracy, AND they would need to use pulse measurements to eliminate self-heating (no mention), which means on time would have huge impact due to self-heating of the fuse temperature.

(p.s. also means that the temperature of your wires in your audio system has way more system impact)

4) They talk about Vector Impedance measurements, but don't claim the HiFi is the best for those (like every other one) ... and curiously the mentioned table of results is missing.

5) Their "noise increase" is  not nearly well defined enough to be meaningful. Increase over what as a start.

OH, and this is the best one. You can guarantee every piece of equipment they use has a garden variety fuse in it, is powered with a cheap power cord, and is connected to a rather garden variety power bar.

But sure george, you use these worthless results to try to justify your position.




geoffkait17,710 posts10-25-2019 5:48am
http://www.hifi-tuning.com/pdf/wlfr.eng.pdf

GK

1) I am surprised that with your extensive knowledge that you didn't know that cryogenic treatment of metals for conductivity is not a new thing. Heck, you can find scientific paper on it.

They show about a 2% improvement in conductivity, unfortunately that is likely near their real measurement accuracy, but that level of improvement would not be unwarranted with partial cryo treatment and it could even be a bit better. I say partial as they likely did not have a 2 stage process that would result in even better results near room temperature.

Of course, not sure why I would pay 20-50X to get the improvement that could be achieved by just going up to the next fuse value.


W.R.T. to your audible claim of direction, since you claim the change is instantly obvious, YOU should be able to easily recreate it  (with someone else changing the direction .. or not) ?


geoffkait17,713 posts10-25-2019 10:35am
Now, what is interesting, for the novice like yourself, is how consistent the differences in measured voltage drop are with *listening experience*. And how consistent the improvement in voltage drop is after cryogenic treatment. 

So, at a minimum, I think it’s fair to say - based on the measurements data - SOMETHING IS GOING ON. 🤗 it’s not near as BLACK AND WHITE as you believe. A listener who doesn’t have a learning or hearing disorder can almost always tell when a fuse is in the correct direction. 

For the record, I have never ever worn bell bottoms. I am old, I am not that old. Yes I am aware that cryo treatment was and is used heavily in space/aerospace .... and of course you were one of the first 332 :-)


geoffkait17,715 posts10-25-2019 12:01pmHey, it’s a hobby. Get over it! People chose what they want to believe. 

As for your snippy remark re metal cryo I was one of the very first to use cryo for metal and other materials processing way back when you were wearing bell bottoms, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖

To you, this document may appear detailed, authoritative and informative. To someone skilled in the art, it is amateurish and flawed.

NO, there is no consistency from study to study, especially for something like this. That is not at all a justification for no pictures or no equipment list. I get 3rd party test reports all the time to meet customer requirements or to validate results where we are unsure our in-house testing is sufficient or for compliance testing. With every report is a picture of the test setup AND and equipment list. Both items are essential to validate the results and/or to interpret the accuracy of the tests.

Whether I post results or not, and the funny thing is, you have no idea if I have or not, because like you, our names our anonymous here, MATTERS NOT AT ALL to the claims and accuracy of this report.

It is a simple fact, yes fact, by the labs own admission (with their equipment accuracy standards), that they cannot measure to an accuracy that could justify a conclusion that fuses are directional w.r.t. resistance, and, based on pictures of their lab, and the lack of any discussion of temperature control, pulse measurement, etc. it is easy dismiss resistance variations of less than a few percent due to the lack of temperature control.  Heck, they didn't even list how many samples they tested, is this the result of one carefully chosen sample against random competitor samples, is this an average of 2, 5, 10? .... what is the standard deviation, max/min? .... you know, REAL test data.

They don't even list the test current for fuses under 3A, AND, list a DC resistance of one competitor of 0.58 ohms, but somehow its AC resistance is closer to 0.068. That would suggest measurement error.





clearthink950 posts10-25-2019 10:30am
roberttcan" GECOM technologies document is not a proper report of a metrology testing lab, this is purely a marketing document and an auspicious one at that. Let’s point out the BS in the document: 1) No listing of equipment is provided, no pictures of test setups,’

"That is very funny you are attacking this detailed, authoritative, informative report because it does not have pictures! The report does not include all of the background information because that is consistent from study to study and is otherwise available there is no need to report it individually for each study what is obvious here is that once someone comes out with actual data you shoot it down but you have no data yourself to supplant it even though you claim to have actual done extensive research and studies to support the millions of electronic devices you claim to have manufactured."

To use your desired form of hyperbole clearthink:

Your post is brutally ignorant, horribly misinformed, stupendously communicative of your lack of education or literacy in the topic at hand, and highly illustrative of your partisan desire to promote a particular outcome or position such that you are making up a version of reality that does not exist, or are ignoring reality to advance your goals.

ME!


clearthink959 posts10-25-2019 1:38pm
roberttcanT"this document may appear detailed, authoritative and informative. To someone skilled in the art, it is amateurish and flawed... That is not at all a justification for no pictures or no equipment list...With every report is a picture of the test setup AND and equipment list."

"I understand you’re wish, desire, and preference for pretty pictures but for educated, informed, literate readers such pictures are just a nuisance that get’s in the way of analyzing, assessing, and verifying actual data.

The report does not include all of the background information because that is consistent from study to study and is otherwise available there is no need to report it individually for each study what is obvious here is that once someone comes out with actual data you shoot it down but you have no data yourself to supplant it even though you claim to have actual done extensive research and studies to support the millions of electronic devices you claim to have manufactured. "

Any time you would like to publicly compare our engineering knowledge w.r.t. to audio, electronics, and acoustics, you let me know clearthink. I don’t claim to know more than everyone, but your response to my analysis of the fuse "data" shows that I know a lot more than you.

clearthink961 posts10-25-2019 3:01pmroberttcan"Your post is brutally ignorant, horribly misinformed, stupendously communicative of your lack of education or literacy"

"You seem to have a problem with comprehension, understanding, and reasoning and you’re claims as a result do not withstand or survive even the most trivial, brief, cursory review."