I'm evaluating some prototype fuses that I received in the mail three days ago.
Over the past few years, I've used fuses from five different manufacturers. The last three were the Red, Black and Blue fuses from Synergistic Research. Each one incrementally improved the sound of my system. My favorite so far was the SR Blue.
The prototype fuses being evaluated presently raises the SQ beyond all of the others mentioned above. The major improvement to my ears is better tonal accuracy. Instruments and voices are more life-like. The noise is reduced allowing for a more solid 3-D presentation with the musicians more solidly presented on the sound stage. Overall, more information is fleshed out of CDs and LPs.
The manufacturer, the price and the name of the prototype fuses will come later. I don't have the information thus far. My understanding is, if all works out, the release date is to be mid-October.
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.
moops, 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.
Too 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.
Roberttcan, I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears we’re not on the same page. Just because YOU use the term “scientifically controlled” doesn’t impress me like I’m sure you were expecting. If you’re looking to be nominated for bloviator-in-chief you’re on the right track. 🤡
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."
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.
I’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.
roberttcan 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?
>>>>>I’m sufficiently familiar with The Amazing Randi Million Dollar Challenge to understand the “scientifically controlled double blind tests” for audio can be easily manipulated so that no one has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing one. I also have much testing in my professional experience for enormously expensive and complex mission critical systems for both NASA and FAA. IMHO Scientifically controlled double blind tests are a SCAM, in so many words - especially when they are used in the context of controversial audio devices and concepts.
Will someone here start and moderate a FB page, where rules of decorum
are enforced? No put downs, etc. Call it "Audio Forum Refugees".
The ONLY reason it is enforced on Farcebook is because the OP of the original posting, if they are the administrator, has total power and can delete any post and block "subversive " members from further posting. Can see that working real well here......
They will also steer you away from things that don't improve your listening experience.
Brilliant. Stunningly so.
I've been following the back and forth on Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden" and after reading a certain someone's posts I think we just may have our first 'break' through data point. : )
Hopefully: the kind of people we’ll run into, on a site(purportedly) dedicated to the improvement of one’s listening experience, will be those that point us in a direction, conducive to achieving that goal. It’s been my experience; making system/listening improvements takes experimentation. Whether in the position of one’s speakers, relative to where they’re seated, walls, etc(major/usually profound), or- what fuses one chooses and uses(minor/generally subtle).
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.
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.
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.
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?
That all of the conversations circle around things that have nothing to do with one just trying a fuse and hearing it for themselves? And how that person never goes off the deep end about any other parts of the audio chain? (and if he does, god help anyone who encounters him)
What is it about this site that draws people like that? Is there a factory or training facility that prepares them for this site?
I've said this a long time ago on a similar thread: this is not about fuses. There is some latent event, or series of events, that have led these type of people to go off the deep end and vent in threads like this. Don't encourage them.
roberttcan"So that must mean you are willing to publicly participate in a double blind ABX test, results published of course, perhaps even put some money into the bet. I am more than willing to do that."
We don't want you to steal money from you're mommy's purse, and she probably doesn't have enough USD$$$$ to play in this game.
I just KNEW that was coming! The old Amazing Randi ploy. Well played. 🤗 Next up, the $10,000 Blind Test Challenge. Just when you thought this thread couldn’t possible get any funnier.
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.
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.
I suppose; some are so lithocephalic(an indicator of hubris), that they’re incapable of noticing another’s use of words like, "generally", "variables", "usually", etc. And, again(my point): Anyone’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade another(that cares about sound) from experimentation. ie: Listening/testing/exploring, on their system, with their ears.
... 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.
A single test, whether controlled double-blind or any other kind of test, is simply a data point. Therefore, no conclusions should be drawn. Certainly not proof of anything. It’s only when the test results have been repeated on the same system and on other systems by other individuals can inferences be made. It’s a question of evidence accumulating over time, it’s not about proof. The motivation of the tester should should also be examined. 😬
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.
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 ....
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.
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.
On 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’s having convinced themselves otherwise, through whatever process, should not dissuade another(that cares about sound) from experimentation.
Eggs-ackley! Most likely scenario is a miscreant Wiki scientist’s full blown attack on audiophile tweaks. They are red herrings and they’re logical fallacies. So typical. Highly motivated (who knows why?) escapees from the James Randi Educational Foundation. 🤡
“It can’t pass a double-blind test.”
“Perform a double-blind test and you’ll get your answer.”
“None of those crazy tweaks can pass a properly performed controlled test.”
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.
There it is! 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. This is classic pseudo scientist behavior.
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.
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
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.
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.
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" ....
...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.
...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.
OK, kiddies, what time is it? It’s time for the Intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery again. 🤗
“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
Science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
