Synergistic Red Fuse ...

Jafreeman 9-27-2017
I am hoping Almarg and peers will answer my question about AC mains and the functions of their fuses, as I am quite surprised with the sonic gift they are providing.

I can’t explain that, Joe. Obviously a 10 amp fuse comes a bit closer to being no fuse than a 7 or 8 amp fuse that is otherwise similar, at least in terms of lower resistance, lower voltage drop, and reduced fluctuations in voltage drop as current demand fluctuates. But I would expect both those differences and any resulting sonic differences to be small, especially between the 8 and 10 amp Black fuses you’ve tried. And especially with a robustly designed amp such as the REF 210, which per its description at arcdb.ws has numerous internal voltage regulators, large amounts of energy storage in its power supply (787 joules), and does not have a huge difference between its current draw at idle and at max power (that difference being well under 2:1).

Unrelated to the fuse question, though, after looking at your system description it appears that you are connecting your REL subs at speaker-level, and I assume you are using the balanced inputs of each sub, since the amps are fully balanced. Assuming that is the case, I’m wondering where you are connecting the ground wire from the subs (i.e., what would be the black wire in a typical REL Speakon cable)?

Regards,
-- Al

Joe (Jafreeman), yes, the reason I asked about the subs is that connecting a sub to the outputs of amplifiers that are balanced or bridged or monoblocks can be tricky, and I’ve seen a lot of posts here in which people have described doing that in an incorrect manner, at least from a theoretical standpoint. Although in many cases the results are still reasonably good, due mainly to the happenstance of the internal grounding configurations of the sub and the amp.

And in the case of your particular sub the issue is further muddled by inconsistent and misleading statements in the manual, which I found at this link:

https://relsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/115015632767/REL-ST-Series-Manual.pdf

In various places the manual refers to using the sub’s balanced input for amps having balanced outputs or differential outputs or bridged outputs, or various combinations thereof. And in at least one case it refers to "differential output (bridged mode) amplifiers," which is completely misleading.

In this case, since it is a fully balanced amp it has a differential output, and the amp’s negative output terminal therefore has a full amplitude signal on it. By connecting the sub’s ground wire to that terminal you are creating a path for that full amplitude signal to the sub’s circuit ground, then through some unknown but probably low impedance within the sub to the sub’s AC safety ground, then through the AC wiring to the amp’s AC safety ground, then through some unknown but probably low impedance within the amp to the amp’s circuit ground. In other words, not quite a direct short of that full amplitude output of the amp to the amp's circuit ground, but a connection of that signal to the amp's circuit ground through what is likely to be a relatively low impedance. Which depending on the particular impedances that exist between circuit ground and AC safety ground in the sub and the amp might degrade sonics, cause hum, or even damage the resistors that probably connect those two grounds in each component.

The right way to do it is stated on page 18 of the manual:

For differential amplifiers using two subs, one for each channel: connect red to positive; yellow to negative; and black to chassis ground; plug the Speakon into the balanced high level input (Bal Hi Input).

The "chassis ground" connection can be to any screw on the chassis of the amp, assuming that paint doesn’t interfere with the connection.

As I indicated, compared to what you are presently doing there may or may not be all that much difference sonically, depending mainly on the internal grounding characteristics of the sub and the amp. But this is the right way to do it.

Finally, when you try this you may find (depending on the design of the sub’s balanced input circuit) that the output of the sub increases by 6 db, and if so you’ll have to reduce its level setting correspondingly.

Getting back to fuses, regarding your mention that...

... the front-panel display on each amp now reads at 120-121V, whereas at lower fuse ratings, the line voltage was at around 117V. The operating range of the ARC 210’s is 105V-130V.

That’s certainly surprising, but what I can say with certainty is that if the 7 or 8 amp fuses were dropping 3 to 4 volts, not to mention 3 to 4 volts more than the 10 amp fuse is dropping, while conducting the more than 3 amperes the amp draws even when idle, the fuse itself would be dissipating (consuming) upwards of 10 watts of power, converting it to heat, and promptly melting. Therefore I suspect that either the line voltage has changed, or the fuse holder has loose or corroded contacts, or the meter on the amp is erratic, or some combination thereof.

Best regards,
-- Al

The hiss reduction functionality that is provided these days in professional audio editing programs works in a far more sophisticated manner than simply rolling off the highs. For example, the user can define a very brief segment or segments of the material in which there is no music, allow the program to sample and analyze the hiss during those moments, and by taking advantage of modern computing horsepower "subtract it out" from the musical passages.

Of course, that is not to say that there won’t be undesirable side-effects. There certainly can be, but to a greater or lesser degree depending on the judgment, musical sensibilities, and expertise of the user. And more specifically on how judiciously he or she adjusts the numerous settings that are involved in using any such program, and on how aggressive he or she chooses to be in minimizing the hiss. And depending also, of course, on the nature of the material and the amount of hiss that is present to begin with.

Regards,
-- Al

Jay23 9-29-2017
...the patent for "UEF Technology" is the paint.

As a point of information, I had said as follows in a post in this thread dated 9-23-2017:

The Blue’s description at the SR website states in part as follows:

The new SR BLUE Quantum Fuse was developed over a two year period and represents our most advanced UEF Technology to date. At its heart is a completely new UEF / Graphene coating that delivers a dramatic increase in resolution and holographic realism over SR Black....

... At Synergistic Research we’ve isolated key factors that affect how electricity propagates by changing the behavior of electrons through Inductive Quantum Coupling methods we collectively call UEF Tech. In fact, UEF Tech is so powerful even an electrical chain several miles long is fundimentally [sic] improved with nothing more than a single fuse engineered with our patented UEF Technology.

Yet none of the four patents we have determined to have been granted to Mr. Denney make any mention of fuses, UEF (Uniform Energy Field) technology, or Inductive Quantum Coupling.

Mr. Denney’s acoustic paint patent is one of those four.

Also, FWIW, Mr. Denney responded in this thread a few hours after a request was posted for someone to identify the patent referred to in the Blue Fuse description, and for whatever reason he did not address that question.

Finally, and also FWIW, it should not be forgotten in this discussion that Wolfie did in fact try several of the Black fuses in several different components, with the result being no significant benefit and two of them blowing.

Regards,
-- Al

An additional thought regarding the recent posts on SR’s Acoustic Paint patent, adding to the previously stated facts that the patent makes no mention of fuses, UEF, or Inductive Quantum Coupling. Or for that matter anything that has to do with the processing of electrical signals or AC power. (It is about **acoustic** paint, after all):

A careful reading of the 10 claims in the patent makes clear that all 10 claims are limited to applications of the paint to the walls of a listening room. Therefore if another manufacturer were to market fuses treated with a paint formulated identically to the descriptions provided in the patent, he would be able to do so without infringing on Mr. Denney’s patent.

One more reason why the reference to a patent in the Blue Fuse’s description, which states that....

At Synergistic Research we’ve isolated key factors that affect how electricity propagates by changing the behavior of electrons through Inductive Quantum Coupling methods we collectively call UEF Tech. In fact, UEF Tech is so powerful even an electrical chain several miles long is fundimentally [sic] improved with nothing more than a single fuse engineered with our patented UEF Technology.

... is dubious at best.

Regards,
-- Al

Hi Tom (Theaudiotweak),

As you are no doubt aware, the claims section of a patent defines in very precise terms exactly what the invention or inventions is or are for which the patent holder is granted exclusive rights. A patent attorney will attempt to word those claims as broadly as possible, to make the protections provided by the patent as broad as possible, but without wording them so broadly that a claim encompasses an invention previously made by someone else, which might invalidate the patent or cause it to not be granted in the first place.

In this case, every one of the 10 claims, either directly or by reference to one of the other claims, clearly and specifically refers to applying an acoustic paint to a wall, the paint having been formulated in one of several different specifically defined ways, for the purpose of improving the acoustics of the room.

As a licensed patent attorney, I can tell you that if another manufacturer were to market fuses that have been treated with a paint formulated identically to any of the paint formulations defined in the patent, and Mr. Denney sought to bring an infringement suit on the basis of that patent, he would not get to square one with his suit.

Best regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Tom.  Yes, it was a different member, not you, who has been asserting that "the patent for ’UEF Technology’ is the paint," claiming that Mr. Denney’s Acoustic Paint patent is what SR’s description of the Blue Fuse is referring to when it states that the fuse has been "engineered with our patented UEF Technology." As you realize, I have disagreed with his assertion, and I have also stated that none of the four patents you and I have discovered to have been granted to Mr. Denney have anything to do with fuses.

All of this has been in response to a question that was posted several days ago asking if someone could identify the patent referred to in the Blue Fuse description.

Regarding your question about the sound source, the claims appear to be worded broadly enough to encompass any audible source of sound in a listening room. While it is stated elsewhere in the patent that "in many cases, the sound is emitted from a speaker ...."

I can’t answer your last question.

Best regards,
-- Al

Joe (Jafreeman), thank you for the witty and gracious response. I hope my suggestion proves to be helpful.

Jay23, since your last three responses to my posts have been largely devoid of anything substantive, I have little in the way of further comments. However, as best as I can surmise the key to what you may not be realizing could be reflected in your statement a few posts ago that:

A patent need not discuss every usage and effect.

A patent has no applicability to, and provides no protection against, uses and applications of something that is covered by the patent that do not fall within the scope of its claims. To conjure up a hypothetical example, if someone patents an additive to the rubber that is used in automobile tires, and the stated claims apply only to that usage, and someone else subsequently discovers that the same substance is useful as an additive to carpenter’s putty, that someone else is free to market the substance for that purpose. In fact he is even free to patent its use for that purpose, assuming usage for that purpose meets the requirements any patent must meet (i.e., its usage for that purpose must be new, useful, and non-obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the particular art).

That kind of situation, involving patents for new applications of previously patented substances or methods, occurs very commonly.

Similarly, use of Mr. Denney’s patented acoustic paint for purposes that do not fall within the scope of the claims in the patent, such as for treating fuses, is not protected by that patent, and that patent has no relevance to such usage.

Regards,
-- Al