2. misc-audio
  3. 151656-126373

To Fuse or Not to Fuse... That is the question!

Ok.. I think I understand that no fuse is better than a cheap fuse. And a good fuse is better than a cheap fuse. But is no fuse better than the best fuse?

One person on Audiogon said that he achieved better sound by using a Blue fuse over no fuse. I guess my question is... Do these new, high dollar fuses just allow the current to flow better with solid protection or do they actually due to quantum physics or something, actually improve upon the signal by eliminating errant bad electrons and thereby actually improving the music over no fuse at all?

I gots to know!


captaindidactic

Showing 5 responses by atdavid

atdavid
736 posts
 
I have no skin in the game, simply have been lurking and reading, but perhaps I can clear this up from what I read on the other thread. I did not read anything about jea48 wanting to set up a room, but cleeds say below to roberttcan that he has encouraged this activity but received luke-warm reception and appears amenable is this thread to the concept.
Politics aside, it sounds like a fun audiophile activity with some comfortable chairs and a glass of wine.


cleeds2,511 posts10-24-2019 10:35am roberttcan
You just assume I have never done these tests. I have, and more ... I am not under any illusion that all the typical measurements done fully characterize an amplifier. It is one of the reasons why I designed a specific piece of test equipment for a customer ... IF the direction of a cable, independent of a shield is as plain as the nose on my face, then surely it is dead easy to replicate this, blind tested?
Here we go again with a call for blind testing, an exercise that is of very limited value - if any at all - to the typical audiophile. I just don’t understand why those who call for such tests don’t conduct their own, and then share results with the group.

I’ve also suggested that the blind testing advocates organize such a test and recruit subjects from Audiogon. It could be interesting to have such a test session at an audio show, for example. (Caution! Results of such tests can be surprising - and even demoralizing!) When I’ve offered such suggestions in the past, I’m met with orders to do it myself, or required to put up money in a wager, or have an agreement with lawyers regarding the test.

To be clear, I think the results of these tests are not always what they seem, and I question the ability of these tests to correspond to what we actually experience as listeners and audiophiles. But they have their place.

Perhaps the problem is that it is not a simple matter to conduct such a scientifically valid, controlled double-blind listening test. And if it’s not properly conducted, a test obviously has no value at all.
312 responses 
 cleeds2,511 posts10-24-2019 1:40pm roberttcan
I am willing to test on any system you wish to configure ...
Let's see if the group can agree about what that system might look like. Then you could try to assemble something comparable at one of the major audio shows, and invite Audiogon readers and others in to participate.

atdavid
736 posts
 
herman,


E-field is due to charge differential, which is a factor of electrons everywhere in the circuit all at once. Moving charges, i.e. moving electrons in traditional model or (photons quantum model) leads to magnetic field (b-field). Energy vector is integrated cross-product of e-field and b-field over the whole circuit which points to the load always. The b-field and e-field change direction, but the product of them does not.

So while energy transfer is one way, AC is bidirectional and has different field directions for the electric and magnetic fields.

Charge does move, whether very slow, or what is effectively back and force in one place.
atdavid
736 posts
 
And just because you repeat the wrong things over and over that you don't seem to understand does not make them right either.
Saying there is current and ignoring current everywhere in the cable, just like ignoring that the e-field and b-fields change direction, and that they lead to the energy vector and spouting blindly "but but but the energy vector is always towards the load", again, does not make anything you are trying to claim correct. It is not.
atdavid
736 posts
 
I must say, your ability to argue from a position of ignorance is truly remarkable .... just like your attempt to use simplifications to justify your reasoning.

almarg, and others have tried repeatedly explain the concept to you, but here let me put it to you in the easiest way possible. I will leave out the basics of Poynting VECTOR since many others have raised this with you already (quick search shows that). Energy is a scaler in the same way that velocity is also a scaler whose SI unit is m/s = meters / second. Now lets do an example. Geoff leaves his house at 9am and travels, for 1 hour at 30 meters/second. Where is Geoff? You don't know do you. He could be anywhere within a radius of 108,000 meters of his starting point.  If you want to use this "scaler" argument for energy, then you have to accept you can't say that energy always travels from the source to the load because that would require direction .. and energy has no direction.

But then again, the Poynting vector units are watts/m^2. That is not even an energy term, that is a power term ... which defines along with a direction vector where the energy is going and the rate of energy transfer.

atdavid
736 posts
 
No, E fields are not a function of current in this example. You can have an E-field without current. You need a changing e-field / current to have a b-field.

You need to stop eating so many red-herrings. It is giving you indigestion.



More to discover