The new Synergistic Research BLUE fuses ....

nonoise,

That’s pretty much a typical reaction from folks who just don’t want to admit their own perceptions could be in error.

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.
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.

Do you think it "too rigid" that I, for instance, wanted to actually try to discover whether my new music server was the source of my perception? And to do so in a way I knew would reduce the type of variables I wanted to rule out? What do you have against seeking such knowledge?

That is a really weird stance to take.

Just. Try. A. Fuse.

Why?

Why would I do that unless the claim that a fuse changes the sound first seems plausible and has some sound technical basis and evidence behind it? And if the jury seems to be out on that, and I’ve seen EEs comment that it’s an implausible claim. 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?

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.

Prof, thanks for the summary of the double-blind peanut/placebo desensitization study over six months. One possible confounding flaw, though: Unless all subjects from both groups were carefully diet-controlled over six months, those taking the placebo AND reporting allergic reactions could actually have been unintentionally eating trace amounts of peanut product in their diets! Of course, this is the reason why a severe peanut allergy is so dangerous---so many processed foods also contain peanut residue that cannot always be avoided at the point of eating something, even though parents take great care to screen and to avoid such accidents with their children.  The study does show with a high confidence level the value of the treatment, though.  

nonoise"the lengths you go to border on religion: not to be violated at any cost."
It's not LIKE religion it IS actually an actual religion with these people complete with their version of the gospel they have these beliefs based on their faith and it is unshakeable, immutable and steadfast.

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."

They don't need additional "credibility" to be established here because most of those who have used these products already know about the results and many have shared that information here so they'res no need to respond directly to you and your calls for additional testimony because even if they did as you said you will just keep arguing! Actual audiophiles who have used these specific products in they're Music Reproduction Systems are quite satisfied with the result even if you must continue with you're "emperor's clothes" argument!

I think I see what the problem is. You guys are not asking nice enough. You have to put your back into it. How about, “Please try fuse. Pretty please.” And if that doesn’t work, “Pretty please with a cherry on top.” 🍒

One of you have a contact it seems to SR's inventory.

And finally ... rest assured, the fuse sales are going just dandy

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.

Cheers George

@prof 

I appreciate the feedback but I think you're much too rigid an objectivist (not the Ayn Rand type). 

As a discipline, it's fine. As a guiding principle, sure, but the lengths you go to border on religion: not to be violated at any cost. That I can't abide.

Just. Try. A. Fuse. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Here is a fun exercise to try.

What’s needed:

1) music server with random play
2) two or more different masterings of the same release ripped to music server.

Have the music server play tracks randomly and see if you can tell which is from which mastering.

If you consistently can Mazel Tov you have a good quality setup and good ears.

If you can’t, well not so much.

Maybe you could even hear different fuses if the bias were similarly eliminated? If not eliminated, well then you are biased! Thinking you are not biased does not make it so.

@nonoise

But when it comes to expectation bias, I don’t see how it applies here as I never know what to expect. I’m not looking for a big improvement. I wait, listen, evaluate, and proceed, keep it or return it.

Again...this way of thinking simply doesn’t take into account how bias actually works. Which I’d already explained.

Kind of sciencey, wouldn’t you say?

Not at all. You aren’t taking into the account important variables such as bias and the fallibility of your perception.
Perceptually, even if you don’t have any expectation either way, if you are even listening for differences, it can result in you perceiving "surprising" differences that don’t actually exist.

And you don’t even have to be necessarily looking for a difference. Our perception alters at different times for all sorts of different reasons, so we may suddenly "hear" a difference we didn’t expect, then wonder "what caused that difference?" and find something to attribute it to. "Hey, I replaced the caps in my amp a few days ago, I guess that’s the cause!"

It’s just how humans work - we look for cause and effect, but we are often wrong.

(I've mentioned before that I recently changed my music sever/streamer.  I had no expectations at all for any sonic change but...out of "nowhere" when I was listening I perceived a change in my system, it sounded distinctly more pinched and brighter than I ever remembered.  The only thing I'd changed recently was my server so, naturally, I wondered "could that be the cause of what I'm perceiving?" 

So I had a friend help me do a blind shoot out between my old and new server.  Results: I could not hear a bit of difference between them.  So...my natural inclination to assign causation to the new server, as understandable as it may be, was wrong.   And, funny thing, since doing that test I don't even perceive this difference any more.  My system sounds like it always did.

But if I only had the mindset of the subjectivist I would no doubt have taken on the new belief that my new music server altered the sound.  (And I may well have spent more money trying to "solve" a problem that wasn't there, adding more subjective-based tweaks or a new server).

I feel for your son and what you and your family went through but the medical analogy isn’t a good one. The times frames are so far off as to make them non comparative.

That doesn’t make sense. Human bias and errors of perception occur over any range of time you want to mention. And in the study, someone takes a pill and...usually...symptoms occur shortly after - placebo or otherwise. And they report this. How is that "time frame" off or not relevant? (Symptoms are also reported over longer periods of time - days, weeks, so the span between "immediate" and over time is covered in the type of placebo/bias effects I’ve referenced).

As for hearing above what my hearing test says is impossible, don’t forget harmonic overtones (ask any pipe organ fitter).

If you fail to detect a tone above 20Hz in a hearing test...you’ve failed to provide evidence you can hear above 20Hz.

If you want to say "but I can hear overtones above 20Hz when added to tones below that" then, again, that could be tested for. And if you fail to reliably detect these added above 20Hz overtornes, you’d have no basis for claiming you can hear them.

Add in a super tweeter and all those harmonics that can’t be heard suddenly change the event for the better.

How was this determined? The same way audiophile fuses and AC cables are evaluated, by sighted listening? If so, your claim begs the question. But if it is determined that you can hear overtones above 20K by careful evaluation of measurements and testing human perception, then that just makes my point about the relevance of controlled tests.

Add in a sub and suddenly you have presence that you can’t hear but feel and even sense, before you can feel.

Sure, but it’s well known and tested that human hearing extends to subwoofer territory. If you can, in fact, hear when a subwoofer is on or off...that would be easily testable in blind testing (and human low frequency perception has been tested this way).

So where are similarly controlled tests that would suggest the audibility of audiophile fuses, much less expensive power cables etc? (The link you mentioned earlier was an interesting start, but again, doesn’t seem to easily survive some of the scrutiny I’ve seen).

So, no, I don’t think science has it all wrong and I honestly don’t see how you could come to that conclusion simply because I can hear the difference a fuse makes,

My point isn’t really that you think science has it all wrong. As I said, people think science is great for other things...but just not for showing their own beloved perception to be in error.

You seem to be making this type of exception for your own senses, and the confidence you place in your own subjective assessment....when there is so much science showing why you should be more skeptical.

Thanks, and cheers!

 

It’s an incredible confidence in your own subjective assessments, 

Nope. I'm the most cautious person you'll ever meet. Almost to a fault.
And, I'm totally with you on the purpose and need for science. Big time.
But when it comes to expectation bias, I don't see how it applies here as I never know what to expect. I'm not looking for a big improvement. I wait, listen, evaluate, and proceed, keep it or return it.

Kind of sciencey, wouldn't you say?

I feel for your son and what you and your family went through but the medical analogy isn't a good one. The times frames are so far off as to make them non comparative. That, and the incredible amount and range of emotions and fears. 

A more fitting one would be tuning a car by ear. Back in the good old days those who didn't have a strobe had to do it by ear. Distributor timing, valve tappets, jetting carbs, etc. Or adjusting the temp of the water in the shower just by listening (yes, I can tell and I hope anyone in this hobby can do that basic task). 

As for hearing above what my hearing test says is impossible, don't forget harmonic overtones (ask any pipe organ fitter). One can't hear above a test tone but can discern musical information up there where it "can't" be heard. Add in a super tweeter and all those harmonics that can't be heard suddenly change the event for the better. Add in a sub and suddenly you have presence that you can't hear but feel and even sense, before you can feel.

So, no, I don't think science has it all wrong and I honestly don't see how you could come to that conclusion simply because I can hear the difference a fuse makes, without first doubting myself and then testing myself. 

Try it for yourself and then tell us what you heard. Once you've tried it, it'll be prima facie, with no need to go any further. You'll scratch your head, ponder for a moment, then smile and just enjoy the music.

All the best,
Nonoise

I'm  not so sure that I could detect the difference in the proper direction of a fuse in a blind test. I've experienced the difference through hearing and sighting. It has to do with sound stage information and 3-D imaging.  If the fuse is in the "wrong" way, the system sounds out of phase. Placed in the proper direction, everything pops into focus. Its almost like I can see it rather than hear it ... although hearing is involved too. I can't explain it, but perhaps it has to do with the way the wire is drawn during production. 

Frank

👨‍🚀
gdhal
geoffkait - ...By the way it sounds like you’re changing your tune. Aren’t you a big fuse skeptic?...

No. I’m not a **fuse** skeptic. See my response 04-15-2018 10:21pm

I’m skeptical of individuals who state the **impossible**, which is that they can audibly detect with the naked ear whether or not an ordinary fuse/speaker wire has been reversed. See my 04-16-2018 5:52am post.

EDIT:

Pop! 🎈

>>>>>Wow, that’s a disturbing new development. But I get it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Who doesn’t? But let’s get real, spaceman. You are a fuse skeptic. Hel-loo! You just don’t seem to know what you are. If you don’t think anyone can hear it that makes you a fuse skeptic. You’re just playing some silly blind test game. It’s so obvious. Whew, that was a close call! For a second I thought one has gone over to the other side. False alarm.

prof
geoffkait,

You are an interesting character .

I still appreciate your input into my crazy turntable isolation thread. And I thought I'd maybe figured you out, peeked beneath the curtain to see how you were having fun. But now I'm not so sure ;-)

Hey, whatev.

Thanks, moopman, always good to get a system engineer’s perspective. 🤡

In hindsight one of the very best names for one of my products was the Teleportation Tweak

Yes you should be very proud of that! The fuse and other controversial tweak vendors should also be very thankful to have you (along with your furtive imagination) on their side as chief technical spokesperson.

It’s all about one’s personal assessment of probability.

Yes it is. With perhaps a bit of wishful thinking and monetary factors tossed in the mix on occasion.

mapman,

read the the next thing I said. It's all about one's personal assessment of probability. I pass on many tweaks because I think the probability of them making a positive difference is low. I can't say for certain that they don't work, though.

geoffkait,

You are an interesting character .

I still appreciate your input into my crazy turntable isolation thread.  And I thought I'd maybe figured you out, peeked beneath the curtain to see how you were having fun.  But now I'm not so sure ;-)

@prof the link to testing methodology is in this post of mine

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-new-synergistic-research-blue-fuses/post?postid=1545319#1...

In hindsight one of the very best names for one of my products was the Teleportation Tweak. You know, just based on all the comments it has garnered over the years, mostly from people just like mapman. No offense intended, Moops. I’m kind of surprised nobody has reported me to the Federal Communications Commision, I confess, or Homeland Security. My only regret, I suppose, and I’m nitpicking here, is that I’ve heard no mention whatsoever of a Nobel. What’s up with that?

On the Serengeti you don’t have to be the fastest Wildebeest. But you don’t want to be the slowest.

You cannot know for certain whether or not something will make a positive audible difference for you personally until you actually try it, PERIOD.

No doubt. The thing is that can be said about anything. Even Teleportation Tweaks.  Maybe more folks should try that?

Did some reading on this a while back FWIW. The iron in hemoglobin (red blood cells) is weakly reactive to magnetic charge (has been demonstrated in a lab along with micro-graphs as evidence), but there are 2 kinds of charge - oxygenated hemoglobin weakly repels and hemoglobin carrying CO2 is weakly attractive. Most of the hemoglobin in the human body is oxygenated.

The magnetic bracelet idea works in the mind of the consumer as being a way to 'attract and to hold' RBC's at a particular site on the body, presumably for tissue repair. 

But, if you understand how the cellular respiratory system in the body works this is a pretty dumb idea and, in fact, the exact opposite of what you would want to happen. RBC's deliver oxygen to all the cells in the body and collect the waste (CO2) and take it back to the lungs where it is exchanged for O2 again and the cycle repeats...cellular respiration. Assuming there was a way to 'collect and hold' RBC's to a given site (let's presume it is for the sake of, say, tissue repair), then we have to consider the following. A) there's only one task that the RBC's can perform (exchanging the 2 gases...the fighting of foreign bodies in the blood can only be done by white blood cells which contain no iron) and that B) any delay in the exchange process can and will only result in a delay of cellular respiration...not an advantage at all, and in fact, a disadvantage.

But, because of the fact that oxygenated hemoglobin is weakly repelled by a magnetic charge, even the implied claim that they can be influenced to stay at the bracelet's applied site by magnetism is wholly untrue. Only the CO2-carrying RBC's could theoretically be attracted to the site which of course, can be of no benefit and in view of the process of cellular respiration overall, that delay is nothing more than an interference.

geoffkait - ...By the way it sounds like you’re changing your tune. Aren’t you a big fuse skeptic?...

No. I’m not a **fuse** skeptic. See my response 04-15-2018 10:21pm

I’m skeptical of individuals who state the **impossible**, which is that they can audibly detect with the naked ear whether or not an ordinary fuse/speaker wire has been reversed. See my 04-16-2018 5:52am post.

EDIT:

Pop! 🎈

👨‍🚀
gdhal
geoffkait - “I realize this remark will be met with some skepticism, but there has never been an audiophile tweak that has been proven to be a hoax or a fraud. Sorry for bursting any bubbles.”

My proposed test isn’t meant to nor will it prove anything. But it can be useful to demonstrate if what someone claims to hear they actually can hear, or are merely in a state of delusion.

>>>>I realize in your mind you think it’s useful. I’ve already pointed out why you’re wrong.

In other words, you are correct. It won’t prove a fuse is or isn’t a hoax or a fraud. But it will provide opportunity to offer into evidence whether or not the impossible, is possible. Sorry for bursting any bubbles.

>>>>No, it won’t do anything of the sort. it doesn’t mean anything. Pop! 🎈 Besides, I will decide what’s possible, not you. And stop using my lines! By the way it sounds like you’re changing your tune. Aren’t you a big fuse skeptic? Oh, I get it, you just think the differences are too small to hear. Sitting in the fence, eh? Don’t tell me you’ve come over to the dark side.

You cannot know for certain whether or not something will make a positive audible difference for you personally until you actually try it, PERIOD. You CAN assess the probability of a positive result in many different ways. Results reported by others is one legitimate way to do that. If you decide, by whatever means, that the probability is too low to be worth your trying it personally, that’s fine. Feel free to say that, and state your reasons why. Persistently making absolute statements that it doesn’t work, badgering, ridiculing and personally attacking those who have tried it, and find it does make a positive difference, is not decent or acceptable behavior, and should not be tolerated.

prof

“uberwaltz,

Your question is like "how do you know magnetic bracelets don’t work in healing people don’t work if you haven’t tried it?"

Just as a magnetic bracelet is based on medical claims that have no main-stream medical backing and the "evidence" is of the unreliable personal anecdote variety, it’s the same with audiophile fuses.”

>>>>>No, it’s not like magnetic bracelets. Or other odd ball alternative healing remedies. Its not like dowsing. It’s not like sleeping on nails. It’s not like sleeping with a crystal under your pillow. It’s not like radionics. It’s not like UFOs, either. And it’s not like any of the other absurd examples skeptics come up with. Those would all be logical fallacies.

From Zen and the Art of Debunkery,

• Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a pre-emptive holy war against invading hordes of quackery-spouting infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending it.

• Reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such discovery were legitimate, then surely we would already know about it!"

• Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed unorthodox and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.

And finally, (gdhal are you listening?)

• Establish a crusading "Scientific Truth Foundation" staffed and funded by a hive of fawning acolytes. Then purport to offer a million-dollar reward to anyone who can repeatably demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon. Set the bar for paranormality nowhere in particular. Set the bar for repeatability at a "generous" 98%, safely ensuring that even normal scientific studies that demand a mere preponderance of evidence, or average results above chance, would fail to qualify for the prize.

prof - ...This is why you can tell someone to judge between cable A and cable B, and even if you don’t even actually switch cables (only ever play cable A), people will often enough still report hearing a "difference" when you "switch."
(And this is one reason why in blind testing you randomize switching - and you can see this effect show up in the scoring of cable differences)....

+1

Everyone please take note. This statement of prof’s is precisely what I have proposed in my Amy > Bob > Amy > Bob test.

Note that in that case *I CAN* hear a difference 100% of time, even if you try and fool me by claiming you put Bob on and really didn’t. So too should you be able to do this when reversing ordinary fuse/speaker wire.


SHAME ON YOU! You know who you are.

I can sum up my feelings to all the Debbie downers here in 2 simple sentences.

I do not care if you hear a change or not.

I do not care if you believe if I hear a change or not.

George
I was trying hard to ignore you but...
If you are going to insist in quoting me then do so IN FULL, not just taking a small section of my post which put of context with the rest of the post changes its meaning entirely.
You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.
You should really know better than to resort to low down underhand tricks like that.
Does it make you feel better to pull such stunts?

Says all I need to know about you......

And yes I will not be surprised if this post is removed once George sees it and spits his dummy out over being called out.

Very well put prof, I doffs me hat to ya.
And to Ralph’s (Atmasphere) saying of "expectation bias"

Cheers George

@nonoise

I think your posts are pretty representative of what is so often termed the "subjectivist" side of not only audio, but any number of hobbies or pursuits. It’s an incredible confidence in your own subjective assessments, despite all the evidence we have for how bias works.

It IS understandable. I get it. Our own experience is the primary way we navigate the world. If we can’t rely on our experience...what can we rely on, right?

Problem is, life just isn’t that easy. Science was a long, hard won education for humanity, to get people willing to challenge their own perception and experiences, test them, put them up for scrutiny, and accept when they are wrong. It’s really hard to do, and most people just don’t want to, especially when a particular set of experiences is really pleasurable, or meaningful...like the buzz of a new piece of gear making an "improvement" to your system.

For anyone out of left field to come into my world and tell me I can’t possibly trust what I hear gives me the creeps. Plain and simple.

That’s only because you don’t seem to understand, or care about, the problems of human bias. What in the world is "creepy" about simply admitting you are fallible?

My son was in a trial for a new drug to treat peanut allergies. It gathered over 500 people who were severely allergic to peanuts to be part of the study. The study was run in the "gold standard" way, double blind, with a control group on a placebo, the others getting the "real drug." The drug consisted of ever increasing amounts of peanut protein to get the allergic person’s system more and more tolerant to peanut protein over time. The control/placebo group got mere flour that looked exactly the same. Again...neither the doctors nor the subjects ever knew if they were getting a placebo or the real peanut protein.

The study finished after 6 months and blood/skin tests were taken to measure all the immune markers for allergy, and compared to the tests taken before the subjects began the study. It was a huge success. Those like my son who were on the real peanut protein showed huge differences in peanut tolerance at the end of the study. Where once the teeniest bit of peanut put him in the hospital, now he was eating a peanut a day no problem.

But here’s the thing. During the study, everyone had a symptom diary and reported into the clinic every two weeks for updosing. Numerous subjects on the placebo ALSO reported similar symptoms to those who were actually taking the peanut dose: scratchy throat, itching, stomach upset, nausea, etc. In fact, during the study the clinic doctors would try to guess who was on placebo and who was on peanut protein and the kept track of their guesses, inferring from the reports of symptoms among the study group. It turned out they were wrong 50 percent of the time! Almost always simply guessing!

In other words, the power of placebo and expectation etc is so strong that merely taking what people THOUGHT was something they were allergic to, or even COULD be taking, was enough to bring on subjective symptoms.

This is why studies are run the way they are, with the controls of the doctors not knowing who is on the drug (so they don’t influence the outcome) and the patients don’t know, with a placebo control group.
Then at the end if they are evaluating what type of symptoms to expect from this treatment (and results) they results of the real drug effects can rise above the "noise" of the effects shared between the placebo and non-placebo group. It helps them discern what are "real" effects from the drug from the merely subjective effects that come from simply taking a new pill, or thinking you are taking the drug. If they only gave the drug to everyone, they would not know to what degree symptoms from the treatment were likely psychological expectation brought on simply by being given a pill, vs physical symptoms actually caused by the drug. THAT’s why it’s so important to control for human bias when you really want to understand what is going on.

So my question to you is: do you think science has got all this stuff wrong? That all these strenuous attempts to control for variables is wasted time and they should just give a drug and ask someone if they feel better? Would you, if you were in the study say "I don’t need all those controls. We can trust my subjective reports for accuracy?"

I’d like to know your answer, though I’m first going with the presumption that you actually accept the validity of the scientific method.

The question left then is: why in the world do you think bias is going to be a big problem that requires controlling for in so many areas of human study...but somehow YOU and other audiophiles are immune to it, and can simply trust your subjective impressions as veridical and accurate?Why this strange exception for audio...as if bias effects wouldn’t operate in that domain of our perception?  (It does, it’s provable).

Hearing tests are a form of blind testing what range of tones you can hear.  Would you actually dispute the results of your hearing test and say "I don't care what you say, I believe I can hear above 20 Hz and so that's a fact!" ?

As I said, most people accept science...for other people. But if it comes to putting their own subjective experiences under the microscope, suddenly science doesn’t apply to them and "You can’t tell me I can’t trust my own perception!"

And should anyone point out that, sorry, you, me, all of us are fallible in our perception then it’s the person pointing this out who gets shouted down and often insulted. People are just so emotionally attached to their own subjectivity...that’s what you get.

prof,

When I try something I listen, over the long run, to hear how and if it differs, and in which ways. It takes time to ascertain in some respects and is quite obvious in others. There's no expectation as in I know I'm going to hear something different. I let it sink it, like most things in life.

Nothing is on the line except my listening tastes. I know, by now, what to listen for (as in which areas have eluded me) and which areas need to be tamed.

I don't know where some people get the notion that anything you hear is immediately suspect and to be doubted, that it has to be tested, double tested, blind tested, done many times over by groups of people who will never come to consensus on the matter. Too many tests and too many people introduce too many variables. That's crazy talk, in my world.

For anyone out of left field to come into my world and tell me I can't possibly trust what I hear gives me the creeps. Plain and simple. I think I've been more than tolerant on the matter.

My senses have served me well all my life. I've only encountered such animus when discussing politics or religion. All this negativity in audio has been a recent phenomenon for me, relatively speaking, and I've only witnessed it hear on forums and sites like this one. 

People I know stay the hell away from places like this for that very reason. Passion is one thing. Zealotry is another. Mix in the current trend for tribalism and there's really no going back. It's going to get worse. That old genie is not going back into the bottle. 

Don't take this the wrong way but do enjoy your Quixotic quest as you try to save folk from themselves. I don't need convincing as there's always that 30 day policy to return something if it doesn't work out for me. 

All the best,
Nonoise

I can respect someone who says “I don't know for sure if it makes a difference or not, but I'm not going to try it because I don't see enough probability that it will work.” I have little regard for those who “know” that it cannot possibly work without ever trying it.

And those with technical knowledge have little regard for someone who's majority of posts are to do with "snake oil" tweaks and has who has no technical knowledge, and doesn't seem to think it matters.

Cheers George 

@nonnoise,

I’ve gone back several pages. Haven’t found the link yet but have noticed the test has already come in for some sensible sounding skepticism and critique by other members. I’ll find the link when I have more time.

And, you seem to forget that Paul McGowan had no idea what his friend was replacing as he put the new fuse in and took it out. All he heard was the sound getting better, then worse, then better, then worse. It was only afterwards, that his friend told him all he did was replace the fuse.

Nope, I didn’t forget that. You are, like many audiophiles, under a misapprehension about how bias works. Bias doesn’t operate only in one sense - only hearing a difference if you think there will be a difference. It happens even if you don’t expect to hear a difference. Why? Because even if you *think* you are comparing one thing to another even that can produce false results. This is why you can tell someone to judge between cable A and cable B, and even if you don’t even actually switch cables (only ever play cable A), people will often enough still report hearing a "difference" when you "switch."
(And this is one reason why in blind testing you randomize switching - and you can see this effect show up in the scoring of cable differences).

I experienced this myself several times, thinking I was hearing sonic differences that I didn’t expect to hear when I switched something in my system - e.g. an AC cable, a digital server, etc. But blind testing showed I couldn’t in fact actually note any difference once I didn’t know which was playing.

This is why the very common refrain "I wasn’t expecting a difference, but I experienced it anyway, so it COULDN’T have been placebo/bias effect" simply gets things wrong. But it’s a pervasive myth nonetheless.

@tommylion,

Is there anything more subjective than one’s personal perception of, response to, and enjoyment of music? Given that, it makes perfect sense to evaluate the equipment used to reproduce music for one’s own enjoyment in a subjective manner.

You are mixing up two subjects: the subjective evaluation of music with objective facts or claims about what is audible or not. What you can or can’t hear is an objective fact. That’s why we have things like "hearing tests." You can claim you swoon to the sound of a 19K tone, but if you can’t identify when a 19K tone is playing in a blind hearing test, you can’t hear it.

Also, subjective opinions, emotional reactions, preferences etc can also be studied: they are every day.

You can even in principle (and in practice) find out if you even have an accurate grasp of YOUR OWN preferences. For instance, if you think you tend to like the sound of X speaker design over Y speaker design, you can do a blind test to see if, in fact, listening only to the sound, you actually end up picking X speaker as more preferable. People have often enough been surprised in such tests (see the work of Floyd Toole and others...)

Cheers.

So I would like to see the evidence you mention. And of course, even if there is a variation, the question remains open as to whether it amounted to an audible difference, and if the test for this was sighted...well...that just keeps it in the realm of problematic that I’m talking about.

I missed addressing this one. I have no evidence. It's from further up in this thread. Someone else ran it but I do see that you've already discounted the entire thing due to it's being conducted and evaluated by the same person since it was "sighted". 

Oh, for the days of the one eyed ruler in the kingdom of the blind.

I believe lots of people can do the kind of testing mentioned and it would be easy for you to find someone who can accommodate you. I'm not adept at that kind of thing. I do trust my ears enough to not bother.

All the best,
Nonoise

I can respect someone who says “I don't know for sure if it makes a difference or not, but I'm not going to try it because I don't see enough probability that it will work.” I have little regard for those who “know” that it cannot possibly work without ever trying it.

uberwaltz
Conversely I have zero respect for those who firmly grasp an abacus in one hand and slide rule in the other and state its just impossible for a fuse to make any sonic difference.

Was it not that type of thinking that said man would never fly?

Good night all.

Really??
"I have zero respect for those who firmly grasp an abacus in one hand and slide rule in the other"

I think the Wright Brothers would have zero respect for you and your fuse.
http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1903-Wright-Flyer-Blueprints-Free-Download1-740x573....

Cheers George

I have all the respect in the world for those who have tried a fuse or 3 in their system and believed they heard no change, at least they gave it a shot.
Conversely I have zero respect for those who firmly grasp an abacus in one hand and slide rule in the other and state its just impossible for a fuse to make any sonic difference.

Was it not that type of thinking that said man would never fly?

Good night all.

tommylion - ....It is patently ridiculous to say that I can't trust my own ears to tell me whether or not a particular change in my system makes a positive difference in my enjoyment of music.

You're entirely correct. I'm certainly *not* saying you can't or shouldn't trust your own ears. That said, wouldn't you trust your own ears even more so if you heard whatever it is that makes a positive difference, after you've subjected yourself to a blind test and drew the same conclusions? In this context, I'm speaking of a simple blind test, for your own edification. Reason I ask is I've read a lot of posts where once someone hears something sighted, they no longer hear the same thing non-sighted.

@tommylion
Exactly my point, well said.
Its my money and if I am happy with the results from it then so be it.
As I have said many many times, I am not here to persuade anybody to buy fuses, just honestly reporting my listening conclusions.
End of story!

maplegrovemusic - All this talk of do these fuses work or not has lead me to the conclusion I must learn how to measure my system....Or one of the naysayers take measurements ?

Of course fuses work. I realized this first hand very long ago when my carver receiver for some reason drew to much power. The fuse blew. I replaced it with another one I bought at radio shack, where they happened to have a "5 pack" of the same voltage/amperage fuse. I still have 4 left, and they are in a little green tin from a company called "Littlefuse" (subsidiary of Tracor). They must be 30 years old. Anyway, at the time I replaced the blown fuse with the first one in the package, I didn't care (or know or even think to care) about its direction. Nothing on the green tin from the manufacturer about direction either. I turned on the receiver. It worked. It sounded exactly the same as it did with the original fuse that it came with. I didn't feel the need to scrutinize the sound to even try and determine if there was the slightest difference. It never blew again. I didn't think any measurement was necessary. I still don't. I don't believe there is anything more the fuse is supposed to do than protect my carver amp from voltage/amperage spikes, which it did. Therefore, again, nothing to measure. Had I heard a difference or thought I heard a difference, I would have investigated further. So, I'm hopeful that the fuses in my current amp, DAC and speakers will provide the same level of protection if and when needed. 

Fascinating. I did not see that in this very long thread. Would you have a link?

It's from your post just a bit up from here:

Audiophile fuses, and especially the effusive subjective claims of the OP, are of a piece with markers on CDs, tinfoil pieces placed around a system, little "resonating" discs placed on components or around a room, and the countless other dubious beliefs held by many audiophiles.

And, you seem to forget that Paul McGowan had no idea what his friend was replacing as he put the new fuse in and took it out. All he heard was the sound getting better, then worse, then better, then worse. It was only afterwards, that his friend told him all he did was replace the fuse.

All the best,
Nonoise

All this talk of do these fuses work or not has lead me to the conclusion I must learn how to measure my system . I plan on measuring everything I do . Change out a cable - take a measurement . Move a diffuser - take a measurement .... If my ear can hear a difference a highly accurate microphone should hear the same . Should this not apply to a fuse ? Does not one fuser have a microphone to prove once and for all if the Synergistic fuse does change the sound ? Or one of the naysayers take measurements ?

nonoise - That was the most self contradictory thing I’ve read in a long, long time.

This is a relief. For moment I thought whatever I wrote wasn’t even being read. The next step would be in the understanding of what has been written. The "spirit" and "essence" of what is written, as well.

Well it is time for me to do the same as I have done many times during this thread, sit back and enjoy my music.

I am happy with my choices and Tbh could not care less what anybody else thinks.
If you want to believe I am just deluding myself, fine whatever pushes your buttons.

I had hoped this thread would regain its bearings but seems that was a forlorn hope.

Getting back to superior materials in high-end components, a case in point is what can be heard through different levels of stethoscopes.  An entry-level scope can be had on Amazon for $15-$30 and is fine for some, with testimonials of, "Works for me", "Good for the money", "Better than I thought", etc.  They are made of a stamped, lightweight bell, a plastic diaphragm, a single-lumen tube connected to thin-metal binaural earpieces capped with hard-plastic ear cups.  In contrast, a 3M Littmann Master Cardiology scope has a cast, stainless-steel bell that is quite heavy. The tough diaphragm has a silicone surround that allows for membrane discursion.  The thick tube contains two inner lumens for superior transmission of sound, ending in soft ear cups that seal out external noise.  Much more detail in lung, heart, bowel and vessel sounds can be heard. Although there now are electronically-assisted scopes, the traditional stethoscope is a purely acoustical, diagnostic tool, used from body to ear and varies dramatically in acoustic sensitivity depending on quality of materials.          

@uberwaltz,

And before you ask, yes I AM a working EE but do NOT believe that science has the answer for everything or can explain all.

I’m glad to hear you are an EE, but you should know that is no protection from fooling yourself.

The whole insight of the scientific enterprise is how easy we are to fool, no matter how earnest. Remember the always relevant Richard Feynman quote: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

This is why a good scientist employs the type of double-checking protocols like blind/double-blind testing, scrutiny by others trying to prove you wrong, replicatability /predictability of experiments, reduction of variables, etc. A scientist is just as easy to fool through bias and loose protocols as anyone else.

This is why simply being an EE is no firewall against your own susceptibility to bias effects.

@nonoise

Have you seen the video or read the posting of PS Audio’s Paul McGowan stating that fuses do make a difference though he can’t explain why?

Yes I have seen it. (Recently, in fact). And it is an example of exactly what I said to uberwaltz. McGowan’s experience making audio equipment in no way insulates him from the very same bias issues that affect any other human. Insofar as he "tests" for sonic differences with lax protocol, of the anecdotal kind he describe in "hearing" the sonic difference between fuses, he is a susceptible to flawed inferences like any other person. Thus his saying "I heard a difference" is no different than any other audiophile saying the same, given the same unreliable method was used to make this inference.

All tweaks can’t be conflated. If you’ve been following this thread, someone made an audio waveform copy of the same system with two different power conditioners and there was more info on one than the other. That slight trace of sound was distinguishable enough to recognize the music being played and it added to it, for the better.

Fascinating. I did not see that in this very long thread. Would you have a link?

Note that this type of evidence is conspicuously missing for the vast majority of audiophile tweaks I’m talking about, including most AC cable claims.

So I would like to see the evidence you mention. And of course, even if there is a variation, the question remains open as to whether it amounted to an audible difference, and if the test for this was sighted...well...that just keeps it in the realm of problematic that I’m talking about.

That was the most self contradictory thing I've read in a long, long time.