The new Synergistic Research BLUE fuses ....
jetter I enjoy Prof’s well thought out reasoning, regardless of any stance on fuses. >>>It makes a lot of sense you would enjoy his posts as he comes across as if might have been high up the food chain at the James Randi Education Foundation or perhaps a disciple of Peter Aczel and Roger Modjeski. Perhaps he was an over-poster at Skeptics.com. Who knows? A colorful blend of Uber skepticism, anti tweaking, really really good grammar and home spun philosophy. 😀 |
@jay23 @jay23. I can't speak for prof but the reason I am here is to provide some balance and sanity in a thread that is sorely lacking. I remember when I was a newbie and I actually believed in all this nonsense. I would've loved to save the money that I spent on it. Yes I have tried audiophile fuses and no I did not hear any difference. If there was any difference it was so small that it could not be heard or measured. |
| Post removed |
hear·sayˈhirˌsā/noun
Sometimes, the biggest offenders are the most pious of us all. All the best, Nonoise |
uberwaltz, I remain appreciative of your gentlemanly like demeanor, despite the fact that we are at opposite sides of the "fuse" (pun intended). I'm happy to extend a free music download to you, available as flac or shn via download URL I would provide you via PM. No obligation, only if you find something interesting and to your liking. If deep purple is your preference (again, pun intended), I have many more shows not even listed. http://halr.x10.mx/other.html I promise, it will sound grate regardless of how your fuse(s) are oriented. :) |
@prof If you have no intention of trying the product, why bother to spend your time here? The others have mostly been proven to be pseudo-skeptics, that do not believe there is any chance of a fuse making a difference. They seem to take joy in arguing. Those that have tried audiophile fuses and like them are happy. The responsibility for tests are solely on the skeptics and pseudo-skeptics, if they care so much about the tests. You have the tools to test Audioquest's Garth Powell's assertion that you can measure the difference of audio items by recording both, and inverting the phase on one. The explanations of how audiophile fuses work are scattered through multiple threads, but the pseudo-skeptics disregard it all. They just want to argue and act as if they're right. And I feel for the projects you do post-production on. |
geoffkait"By the way nobody is saying expectation bias, placebo effect or other related psychological phenomena don’t exist" This is very true as has been shown here on multiple threads over time and in fact those who suffer the greatest from expectation bias are those who insist there is no difference and so there is no reason to test their belief! They are paralyzed against taking action, study or testing based on their closely held faith based convictions! |
@georgehifi No they don’t personally, it’s hearsay. How is it hearsay? The truth is you just want them here to explain exactly how it works. I put the cookie crumb trail out for you to figure it out way back in the Black fuse thread. Ted is probably laughing that you guys still haven't figured it out. |
No prob uberwaltz, perfectly understood. Admittedly being a bit of a philosophy junkie I'm used to extensively defending a position - not a claim of any competence on my part! - so best you don't get dragged in to that :-) I've had both the Oppo UHD player and the Panasonic UHD player in their box for the last year, still trying to decide which one to use! (For my home theater, which will require effort to re-wire for UHD signals...hence my laziness). R.I.P Oppo.... |
Prof It is all good I have no desire to get into deep debates or online arguements with you or anybody here. At the end of the day it is all about the music and our perception and enjoyment of the same. Now to wit, my brand new Oppo UDP-205 has arrived so time to set it up and see what all the fuss is about if anything. |
Prof I hate quoting people as certain others here have habits of "selectively quoting" that changes the context entirely but.... "I find it no problem to admit my fallibility, and when I really don’t have a high level of evidence and confidence in something. But should it be suggested to other people "hey, maybe you could be wrong...not ARE wrong...but could be wrong, like I’ve been before, and like science tells us to look out for..." then their reaction is to get upset, cast aspersions at anyone daring to challenge their experience as the Final Arbiter Of Truth!" That to me says that you have the feeling that the pro fuse section are spitting their dummies out when it is suggested they may be wrong and absolutely cannot be hearing what they are hearing, which is not the case imho. I think it is possible some of the reactions you have encountered from some members could have been over the top for sure. And not once did I say that you were of the opinion that it was impossible for some people to hear a difference with a fuse change. Unless I misunderstood of course in which case I am sure you will swiftly correct me........ |
| Post removed |
uberwaltz, Have I insisted at any point that it is impossible that anyone can hear the difference between fuses? No. Of course not. And yet my posts have come under invective, emotional replies, strawmen claims of absolutism and religiosity, etc. So, no, I don't have it the wrong way around. Simply suggesting that the pro-fuse crowd's perception *could* be in error (based on well known science about human bias) is enough for many in that crowd to double down and cast aspersions at the temerity in questioning their experience. |
fleschler, Directionality change in fusing is obvious to me (and to my friends). There is no "subtlety" in the difference. I don’t give a rat’s ass why. Well if you remain so incurious and don’t give a rat’s ass about understanding the phenomenon...which would include the variable of human perception....I guess there isn’t much to discuss. So...uh...thanks for the contribution? @jay23, Do you blind test the changes? First, please see my recent reply to nonoise where I expand on my view of blind testing. We can not blind test everything, that’s entirely impractical. So a reasonable heuristic is that when you *really* want to be careful about understanding a phenomenon, or when it comes to claims that are in any way extraordinary, to the degree they are not backed by a consensus of people in the relevant field of expertise for instance - if these are areas in question - then waiting for more evidence based on appropriate controls is reasonable. So why aren’t we having this discussion about the possible audibility between speakers? Because virtually no relevant experts in the field of audio engineering, human perception etc, dispute that speakers sound different. Different designs produce easily measurable changes in the signals that reach our ears, and they fall within the scope of difference well known (and studied) to be audible. That’s not the case with, say, boutique audiophile AC cables, or audiophile fuses, etc. What you have there is for the most part anecdote. The type of sonic changes I make to my sounds fall well within known parameters of audibility. Usually for instance I’m boosting a sound a minimum of 3dB. Back to my view of the audiophile fuse issue: I’m not saying an audiophile fuses can make no sonic difference. (People throw up strawmen like that when they are too emotional to give a more reasoned response to what I actually write). I don’t know if a fuse can make a difference or not. What I do know: 1. It’s an area of dispute among people more knowledgeable about electronics than I am. So that’s a red flag. 2. Therefore I’m left only with the usual anecdotal claims by audiophiles that the tweak "clearly made a difference in my system!" But the problem is that exact claim is made, using the same method of "just put it in your system and try!" that lead people to claim "everything makes a difference" from markers on CDs, to ringing discs to all manner of tweaks that have little basis in sound science. In fact just this appeal to simply "trusting my experience" is used in support of every single far out claim you can name, from faith healing, to psychic powers, to every single dubious nostrum anyone has ever peddled. That's a problem. So....I have reasons to be cautious about accepting the claims about audiophile fuses. And little about the audiophile fuse phenomenon rises above the rest of the audiophile tweakerverse....so I don’t see any reason to spend time on this tweak vs any other. But...simply point out the scientific facts about human fallibility, note that I am fallible and have been shown wrong, and that we are all fallible and can make mistakes in our perception, and this seems to send some people into fits. It’s pretty odd. |
Prof Actually you have it all backwards I am afraid Not one of the pro fuse users, to my knowledge, are stating that just because they hear a difference then everybody must do and get upset when they do not. It is actually the naysayers who are up in arms because they cannot hear a difference and so insist it must be impossible for anybody to hear a difference. THAT is what the majority here are upset over, being repeatedly told they cannot possible be hearing what they are hearing. Just check some of the fervent posts from the non believers..... |
nonoise, There are a huge number of audiophile tweaks out there, why would I be compelled to single out this one to take my time testing? And I'm not an EE, and also don't have easy access to testing equipment. So, like anything else, whether it's tests of car performance/mileage or whatever, I look to relevant experts with the test equipment to do these things, and from my layman's vantage point, note who makes claims and why, and who disputes them and why, and their relevant expertise. And also understanding the basics of the scientific method helps me identify when someone is appealing to an unreliable methodology. To the extent it's useful or I care to, I will use blind testing in my own decisions. But it's not accurate to think I'm some absolutist about all this, as if I'm saying we all have to blind test everything we do. Hardly. That's utterly impractical! I have been into high end audio for most of my life and I have had many things in my system I don't bother blind testing. Even some tweaky stuff. For instance, I wrote a long thread detailing my attempts to build an isolated platform for my new turntable. That definitely took me deep in to tweaky areas. I did my best to satisfy the side of me that likes to see some objective evidence, so I used some basic seismometer apps and other methods to ascertain any drops in resonance. And I use tube amps....hardly the stuff of Hard Core Engineer Objectivists who want strict accuracy. The issue arises when it comes to making claims, or the general level of confidence that is warranted in a belief. What if any of the steps I took actually had an audible impact on my new turntable? The honest answer is: I don't know. I could measure differences in the vibration transfer with and without the new platform. But did this change the output of my system? It's too cumbersome to possibly blind test, but hey....no big deal. I'm not trying to please anyone else but myself. And doing all that work scratched a theoretical "itch" and was also fun and satisfying. But I'm not going to go declaring that I COMPLETELY CHANGED THE SOUND OF MY SYSTEM AND ANYONE WHO CAN'T HEAR THIS HAS EARS MADE OF CLOTH! If anyone cast a skeptical eye on my methods I'd simply say "Yup, I can see the warrant for the skepticism. I agree I don't have a solid basis for presuming any sonic changes occured." I find it no problem to admit my fallibility, and when I really don't have a high level of evidence and confidence in something. But should it be suggested to other people "hey, maybe you could be wrong...not ARE wrong...but could be wrong, like I've been before, and like science tells us to look out for..." then their reaction is to get upset, cast aspersions at anyone daring to challenge their experience as the Final Arbiter Of Truth! |
Synergistic Research states everything you are asking for on their website.No they don’t personally, it’s hearsay. Directionality change in fusing is obvious to me (and to my friends). There is no "subtlety" in the difference. I don’t give a rat’s ass why. From out of phase to in phase as if the polarity were reversed. Choose in phase or suffer poor sound.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmyucZa6wD0&feature=youtu.be&t=11 Cheers George |
@georgehifi Seeing they advertise here just get Synergistic Research to personally post here and back these claims of the "fusers" of transformation of system sound quality and the direction-ability of these fuses. It could only help give these "fusers" and the fuses some credibility. Synergistic Research states everything you are asking for on their website. Why would they waste their time replying to you here, if you can't read or comprehend it on their website? And the "fusers" already gave you proof of an EE and designer that admits that fuses make a difference. That makes your point null. |
@prof I work in post production sound. I am recording and altering sound all day long (Pro Tools). Often minute changes in EQ, loudness, pitch, etc.Especially if we are talking subtle differences in a sound, being able to direct ly compare them, switch back and forth, is MUCH more efficacious in aiding the perception of these difference than extending the time between the changes. Do you blind test the changes? Maybe there is no change, or you have made things sound worse? How do you know without blind testing? You said yourself that YOU can't trust YOUR EARS. After all, you "imagined" your new server sounded brighter. You better blind test every change, so your mixes don't sound like 💩. |
Thank you nonoise for your link to Scientific Proof mythology. As to the Prof, ha! I do the same type of mastering. Directionality change in fusing is obvious to me (and to my friends). There is no "subtlety" in the difference. I don't give a rat's ass why. From out of phase to in phase as if the polarity were reversed. Choose in phase or suffer poor sound. |
prof, You, of all people, have the necessary resources and dare I say, time, to try a fuse. Same with being able to record and measure it. Simply saying the evidence is wanting enough to not compel you to give it a try rings false. Where is the science lover in that? It could be a settled matter for you in short time, instead of a nagging belief that it couldn't be. If your co-workers share the same view as you, just tell them it's to shut up, once and for all, we audiophools over on this site. All the best, Nonoise |
prof"Another assertion of the same claim without an argument." There is no argument with FAITH belief religion and actually FAITH needs no defense it just IS. It is your belief. |
nonoise, sure it does---a flat out denial without true benefit of debunking amounts to just another load of hooey Strawman. Nowhere have I voiced any flat out denial. In fact I wrote: "I’m not declaring fuses can’t make an audible difference. Only that the type of evidence for this claim is far too wanting to compel me to spend time or money on it. "
I think about a week. Listening over the long haul is the only way to correctly ascertain it. That’s a very common claim. But it doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny. Especially to the degree it is used to dismiss blind testing. I work in post production sound. I am recording and altering sound all day long (Pro Tools). Often minute changes in EQ, loudness, pitch, etc.Especially if we are talking subtle differences in a sound, being able to direct ly compare them, switch back and forth, is MUCH more efficacious in aiding the perception of these difference than extending the time between the changes. Let me ask you: If I took a sound - a voice or whatever - made two versions, and increased the second version’s volume by 2db, or increased via EQ some part of the frequency by 2dB, in which scenario do you think it more likely you’d be able to detect the difference: 1. Being able to switch back and forth between both sounds as you require, right now. or: 2. Listening to one sound, and coming back a week later to hear the other one? In other words...just how good to you actually think your acoustic memory is? In blind testing you set it up so you can switch as quickly as you like between two sources to spot a difference. The idea that extending the time frame of reference is necessary, and that weeks or a month later you can be listening to your new tweak or source or whatever and say "Ah, I can hear the difference between this and when I had the other unit in a month ago!" is....well...it’s not very reasonable, especially in terms of what we know about acoustic memory. (It’s not that you *couldn’t possibly* hear a sonic difference over such time - if it’s big enough that’s possible. But to think that it is MORE conducive to detecting subtle sonic differences is another matter entirely). Again, I manipulate sound all day long. If hearing subtle sonic differences when a sound file is altered actually required weeks of "getting acquainted" with the sound of that file, we sound designers couldn’t even do our job! But audiophiles like to make up whatever principles they need to cling on to not testing their beliefs. another purposely misleading statement that requires one to accept that all other implausible tweaks are done by the same people for the same reason Nope. I said all the other implausible audiophile tweaks, by which I refer to those for which dubious and highly disputed (by people in the relevant fields) claims are made. So there is an initial reason for skepticism...and then the rest of the support for the tweak comes from sighted tests. I don’t care about the reasons any of these are done; so long as a tweak has those characteristics, my skepticism is warranted. Have you read/seen this article: Scientific Proof Is A Myth? Yes. I’ve been interested in the philosophy of science for a long time and any scientist can tell you science doesn’t deal in "proofs" strictly speaking. Which is why you never saw any such claim from me. Cheers. |
nonoise"What a load of hooey. Your word smithing is admirable as is you sophistry but stringing together some choice words and presenting them in such a manner so as to suppose a higher ground of sorts is just hubris, It is not hubris really it is faith and actually it is something to be tolerated respected and even welcomed but it is important to recognize it for what it is it is NOT science or hubris but FAITH in the unknown unseen and un-understood. Man has sought answers from the beginning of time - why is the sky blue, for example? Before science could answer that we had religion and now some use religion to understand some of the lesser known mechanisms that involve our Music Reproduction Systems. |
prof"You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It’s one thing to lazily toss around the term "religion" as a slag, it’s another to actually produce an argument that what folks like me propose is akin to religion. " It IS religion and it is odd that you don't see it that is a reflection of your deeply held and cherished faith that you have acquired nourished and cultivated for so long that it becomes part of your lifestyle just as it is for those who's religion is based on something more traditional but there is no difference. |
prof, What a load of hooey. Your word smithing is admirable as is you sophistry but stringing together some choice words and presenting them in such a manner so as to suppose a higher ground of sorts is just hubris, pure and simple. That's pretty much a typical reaction from folks who just don't want to admit their own perceptions could be in error.a misleading deceit And, no, the typical tossing of the word "religious" doesn't stick. It's an anti-dogmatic stance where we simply acknowledge the truth of our own fallibility, and are willing to challenge our own beliefs and perceptions.sure it does---a flat out denial without true benefit of debunking amounts to just another load of hooey It is dogmatic and hubristic to think one's own perception is the Ultimate Arbiter of reality, operating above all the errors to which we know human perception and judgement is susceptible.right back at ya, pal As for your music server, how long did you listen to it before deciding it sounded the same as your previous one? Listening over the long haul is the only way to correctly ascertain it. Was it burnt in, or do you not believe in such things? If not, don't bother addressing this one. And if the claim is being demonstrated by the same way every other implausible audiophile tweak is demonstrated - audiophiles simply claiming "I heard a difference!" - why would I think THIS tweak is different?another purposely misleading statement that requires one to accept that all other implausible tweaks are done by the same people for the same reason Have you read/seen this article: Scientific Proof Is A Myth? All the best, Nonoise |
georgehifi"What gets me is these totally non technical "fusers" think they know more about what make an amp or dac work better or worse than the electronic engineers that designed and built the equipment they are using. And that these $150 fuses have some magical power that can't be measured." Actually it is YOU and people like YOU who toss about this magic power fairy dust claims not the people who are not afraid to LISTEN to they're Music Reproduction Systems and REPORT they're results here even though they know that you are sure to pop up again and tell them they're insane or deluded or believe in the emperor's clothes fairy tail. I do sometimes wonder what it is exactly that people like you are afraid of I guess it is a bit like being a child and being afraid of the dark it is an unknown and it is there that your fear is so deeply rooted. |
@prof You should be applauded and commended. So please allow me to do just that. In my opinion, your written responses are so compelling, that if those you have addressed your response to don't "get it" by now, trust me, they never will. Here is some more Bob Dylan for the fusers, as if my Amy > Bob test isn't compelling enough. Well it ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe Ifin' you don't know by now 🎸 |
What gets me is these totally non technical "fusers" think they know more about what make an amp or dac work better or worse than the electronic engineers that designed and built the equipment they are using. And that these $150 fuses have some magical power that can't be measured. It's like them saying to the gullible potential fuse purchasers here, that they know better than the likes of Nelson Pass ect ect who designed the equipment. Cheers George |
Sanity check. The score is 75,000 positive to 100 (tops) negative. Are all 75,000 delusional? Is this just about the biggest conspiracy ever?! This is even better than UFOs! 👽 I’m afraid what we have here are not real skeptics. These are obviously just some guys out to have some fun and trying to think up a bunch of crazy stuff that sounds cool. Also obvious, they primary reason they won’t ever roll their sleeves up and investigate things like fuses is they wouldn’t want to face the music and admit they were wrong. Not in public. |
@clearthink, "It’s not LIKE religion it IS actually an actual religion ..." You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It’s one thing to lazily toss around the term "religion" as a slag, it’s another to actually produce an argument that what folks like me propose is akin to religion. I am espousing simple empirical principles of inquiry. How exactly does a stance that asks us to recognize our own fallibility, asks us to be willing to scrutinize cherished beliefs or assumptions for error, and seek ways to weed out error for greater reliability of results....and to always be ready to have our beliefs modified or changed by good evidence...amount to anything like the dogma of religions? It doesn’t. It’s the opposite, in fact. It's an anti-dogmatic stance. I'd happily change my mind about AC cables or whatever if there was good evidence they alter the sound of a system. Pure subjectivist-type audiophiles on the other hand, seem unwilling to admit their own fallibility - "you can't tell ME what I heard or didn't hear!." All the evidence of how they could be fooling themselves is waved off as not relevant to their own inviolable perceptual tools. It's a dogma about the their own subjectivity. You can throw around words all you like in an emotional reaction, but actually producing an argument to take your claims seriously is another thing. |
