The new Synergistic Research BLUE fuses ....
| Post removed |
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."+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. |
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. |
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. |
👨🚀 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. |
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! 🎈 |
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. |
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. |
@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 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. |
👨🚀 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. |
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 |
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 |
@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.
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! |
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. |
@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 |
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 |
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! |
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. |
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, 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. |
@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. |
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. |
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 |
@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 🎸 |
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, 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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 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 💩. |
@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. |
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 |
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! |
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..... |
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. |
