Pseudo skeptics have been using religion, expectation bias, placebo effect, holistic or alternative medicine, mass hallucination, subliminal messages, 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. Are you an escapee from Randi’s Education Foundation?
Something For The Fuse Guys ...
There are fuses, and then, there are fuses.
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.
Stay tuned ...
Frank
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.
Stay tuned ...
Frank
666 responses Add your response
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. |
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:
|
I’ve been eating a lot of fish!You stink Step 7: Get SR themselves to start posting to refute any claims about their fuses no these pages and the danger that the "non technical" are putting themselves into playing around inside their equipment. Step 8: They won’t, as the moment they do they become liable if any of the "non technical" get injured or hurt with electrocution, swapping in and out AC mains fuses with their knowledge, they leave it up to their shills and maybe Agon to take the blame. |
| Post removed |
Steps in the Scientific Process:
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:
|
roberttcan"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" Users are free to post hear free of you're personal attacks, ridicule, and threats there is no need to conduct scientific tests even though many of us have done just that. |
roberttcan"As does the number of people following religion, mainly due to high birth rates in highly religious societies (outside the US)." People are free to observe, practice, and follow they're religion without being subject to your threats, insults, and attacks. " As does the amount spent on Homepathic remedies. As does the amount spent on penis pills." I do not know what you mean by "penis pills" you seem to be suffering from some cognitive problem. |
roberttcan43 posts10-21-2019 5:58pm75% 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." People are free to observe, practice, and follow they're religion without being subject to your threats, insults, and attacks and none of us have to prove anything to you so you're attacks on faith and religion have no place here. |
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.” |
| Post removed |
roberttcan ...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 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. |
roberttcan 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. Beware the audio guru. |
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. |
roberttcan 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 validityIf you want to play "gotcha" regarding blind testing here, you'll have to find another foil. |
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 validityIf you want to play "gotcha" regarding blind testing here, you'll have to find another fo |
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. |
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. |
geoffkait 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. |
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.” |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. 😬 |
rodman99999 ... 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. |
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. |
roberttcan61 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? |
| Post removed |
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. |
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. All the best, Nonoise |
| Post removed |
nonoise 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. You are right, I don't believe your claims ...What claims are those? |
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. |
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). |
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. : ) |
