What direction should Hi Fi tune fuse be installed

Not having experimented with it, I am not in a position to take a position on fuse orientation, but fwiw it should be pointed out that ac current does not flow in one direction, it oscillates back and forth in both directions.

Regards,
-- Al

Wolf, thank you kindly. I always appreciate the rather unique combination of literary creativity, humor, and relevant knowledge and experience you bring to these forums :-)

04-30-14: Tbg
Almarg, yes music reproduction changes alternating current into dc and then must turn it into ac again. But many hear significant differences in all manner of parts dealing with this process. So there must be something more than your old dismissive comment.

TBG, thank you for noticing that my comment was submitted years ago, but note also that it was not entirely dismissive.

04-30-14: Tbg
… having one undergraduate major in EE and the other in physics, makes me conscious of the limitations of EE laws and insight into what is going on.

Having two EE degrees and 30+ years of experience designing and managing design of advanced electronic circuits (not for audio), I too would claim to have a better than average understanding of the limitations of EE principles. As you may have seen in past threads, in fact, I have often had occasion to indicate that certain effects in audio are inherently and predictably unpredictable :-) For example, the audible effects that may occur in audio circuitry as a result of inaudible ultrasonic and RF noise frequencies it may be exposed to.

I have also made the point in a number of past threads, however, that it is extremely easy in audio to attribute a perceived sonic effect to the wrong variable. And I frequently find myself wondering when I see claims of perceived effects that are technically inexplicable (inexplicable either “per se” or when considered quantitatively), whether methodological discipline has been applied that is sufficient to assure that the perceived effect has been attributed to the right thing.

For example, with respect to fuse orientation Mapman correctly raised the possibility of variations in contact integrity. There is also the matter of assuring that the equipment is in an equal state of warmup during the various parts of the comparison, and that AC line voltages and noise conditions remain constant. It seems to me that ruling out these kinds of possibilities requires, as a minimum, going back and forth between the two orientations several times, and if differences are perceived assessing each direction across a variety of recordings to assure that the preferred direction is consistent. And upon doing this for one component in the system, whether or not differences are perceived it would seem logical to repeat the process for each of the other components, and for internal fuses as well as external ones. All of which reinforces my skepticism about the thoroughness and methodological discipline underlying many of the reported assessments of tweaks that are even as seemingly simple as this one, much less those that are more complex and expensive.

Personally, I’d rather invest the time that I would consider necessary to do a proper assessment of fuse orientation listening to music. But to each his own.

04-30-14: Tbg
I certainly cannot understand why you [Frogman] would care that some people find fuse direction matters. They are not costing you any money or time.

This is a common retort to challenges that are sometimes made to claims of effects that are seemingly inexplicable and implausible. I of course can’t and don’t speak for Frogman, but as I see it some people (including me) care because the basic reason most of us are here is the hope that sharing of knowledge and experience will be mutually beneficial in making our audio-related investments of time and money as productive as possible. As Mapman put it, prioritizing focus, based on the likelihood and degree of added value. Toward that end, it would seem logical to try to assure that reported effects, especially those that defy technical understanding, are not the result of inadequately disciplined methodology, attribution to the wrong variable, technical misconception, or factors that may not be applicable to many or most other systems.

Regards,
-- Al

05-13-14: Geoffkait
Al, hi, yes that's exactly what I mean, that Joe made the statement, not HiFi Tuning or Isoclean.

To be precise, it was not Joe who made the statement, it was the paper he referenced.

Regards,
-- Al

04-30-14: Geoffkait
Then the net current is zero, no?

No :-) What is zero, assuming no DC offset is present, is the net movement of electrons.

As your subsequent post sort of indicates you realize, power and energy, and in the case of signal conductors, musical information, are conducted unidirectionally, from source to load (assuming the load is resistive). During one half of each cycle, current flows in one direction, and during the next half of the cycle current flows in the opposite direction. Power is proportional to voltage times current, and that product is positive during both half-cycles (the product of two negatives being a positive), corresponding to transfer of power (and energy, which is proportional to power times time) in one direction (for a resistive load).

AC current is generally defined quantitatively on a Root Mean Square basis, corresponding to its ability to convey power and energy into a resistive load, and reflecting the fact that equal amounts of power and energy are conveyed during the positive and negative half-cycles (assuming, again, that no DC component is present).

However, I have yet to see a technically defensible explanation of how a fuse would have any "knowledge" of the direction in which power and energy are being conveyed through it.

04-30-14: Geoffkait
Education can be defined as what's left after you've forgotten everything you learned in school.

That's a cute saying, but it's not really true.

Regards,
-- Al

05-14-14: Frogman
If we are willing to concede that the tiny impact of "extraneous variables" like changes in contact integrity may be audible and may explain the experience of the believers; if the sound of music is that vulnerable to the effects of such seemingly unimportant physical variables (and I believe it is) then it makes sense to me that the inevitable gray areas in electrical theory would also have an effect. Or are these electrical theories absolutely ironclad; with absolutely no possibility of revision? Al? Logic tells me that they probably are not.

I for one would certainly not exclude the possibility that those theories may require revision or refinement at times. And I would go further, in that I would emphasize that even if those theories should happen to be entirely correct as they presently stand (and I do not assert that they are), those theories are inherently incapable of either predicting or explaining everything about how a system will sound. I have often had occasion to say just that in other threads, this recent thread being a typical example.

More broadly, I think that my feelings about the philosophical questions you raise are summed up pretty well in a post I made a couple of years ago in a thread entitled "Do You Believe In Magic". I'll quote the relevant post in its entirety:

01-22-12: Almarg

:01-21-12 Bryoncunningham
I honestly don't know if I'm a Believer or a Skeptic.

Hi Bryon,

That is a good thing, as I see it, because IMO the positions at both ends of the ideological spectrum are fundamentally flawed in numerous ways (that I won’t belabor here), and go hand-in-hand with dogmatism and closed-mindedness. If I may make a somewhat presumptuous comment, your intellectual sincerity and open-mindedness are both refreshing and commendable.

No, I do not believe in magic (although I do like the John Sebastian song :-)).

But my background in electronic design (unrelated to audio) has taught me that many things can occur in a system that are subtle, counter-intuitive, and inherently unpredictable.

Coupling of electrical noise between circuits that are ostensibly unrelated is a leading example. EMI/RFI effects are another example. While those kinds of effects can often be explained in a general sense, once the design has been implemented they can only be addressed by experimentation and trial-and-error. I don’t see anything that is technically implausible, btw, in the experience you described with the particular tweak.

Concerning the broader philosophical questions you raise, my feeling is that each issue and each tweak should be considered on an individual basis, and broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play. But that latitude should remain WITHIN FINITE BOUNDS OF PLAUSIBILITY!! A technical understanding of how the elements of a system work and how they interact, and of the theory behind a specific tweak, if applied with a reasonably open mind, can help assure that perceived effects are being attributed to the correct variable, and to better distinguish between the plausible and the implausible, the reasonable and the outlandish, and between pointless overkill and the possibility of significant benefit.

Rather than a believer or a skeptic, I guess you could call me a pragmatist with a technical background.

Best regards,
-- Al

Mapman & Onhwy61, thanks very much for your kind comments. Let me say also that I always enjoy reading your invariably intelligent and level-headed posts.

Best regards,
-- Al

05-02-14: Frogman
Now, why exactly, is it so important for the skeptics to want to "set the record straight"? Why does it matter so much that some are convinced that the perceived reasons are real? Many seem to take on the role of "protectors of the naive". Please!

Frogman, my answer to essentially that question was provided in the first of my posts dated 4-30-14 in this thread, when I stated that:

... as I see it some people (including me) care because the basic reason most of us are here is the hope that sharing of knowledge and experience will be mutually beneficial in making our audio-related investments of time and money as productive as possible. As Mapman put it, prioritizing focus, based on the likelihood and degree of added value. Toward that end, it would seem logical to try to assure that reported effects, especially those that defy technical understanding, are not the result of inadequately disciplined methodology, attribution to the wrong variable, technical misconception, or factors that may not be applicable to many or most other systems.

If that is tantamount to trying to be a "protector of the naive," I suppose I would have to plead guilty as charged.

Best regards,
-- Al

Frogman, thanks very much for the kind comments, which are particularly appreciated as my perception has been that you have one of the best combinations of musical background and audiophile experience extant.

Geoff, please note that the post which I quoted from the "Do You Believe In Magic" thread was written by me, TO Bryon, who was the originator of the thread.

Regards,
-- Al

TBG, I think that your second previous post, which was addressed to NoNoise, may have been intended for someone else.

As Mapman indicated, the thread appears to have pretty much run its course, and opinions on all sides have been pretty well covered. As is usual in debates such as this, none of the opinions of any of the protagonists will wind up any different than they were at the start of the thread. Others who may read the thread will of course form their own opinions.

There is, however, one thing which has not yet been addressed by anyone other than me (and to some extent by Frogman, in responding to one of my posts). If any of those at the believer end of the spectrum wish to comment further, they may want to consider providing a description of what specific steps they took in their assessments of directionality differences to assure that the differences they heard were not the result of extraneous variables. Such as those I described in an earlier post, namely differences in contact integrity, equipment being in different states of warmup, differences in AC line voltages and noise conditions, etc. And note that I have not even mentioned until now the vagaries of aural perception.

As I indicated in my earlier post, it seems to me that eliminating those kinds of possibilities requires, as a minimum, that the fuse contacts be cleaned, and then that the listener makes several comparisons while going back and forth between the two directions several times.

Regards,
-- Al

So, the question on the table is how a magnet which produces a magnetic field, not an electromagnetic wave, can influence the signal which is composed of photons that, if recall from Electricity 101, have no mass? Or have we kind of come to the conclusion that we actually don't care about how it all works as long as it works. Lol

Geoff raises a fair question, and a good one IMO. I believe I can shed some light on the answer, although my answer should not be interpreted as a defense of the efficacy of magnet-based tweaks, or as concurrence with Tom's statement that "magnets enhance the directionality of ac passing thru them much the same as cryo treatment of metals and conductors enhance and unify the direction of their molecules."

While as Geoff has indicated the speed of electron movement is VASTLY slower than the speed of signal/electromagnetic wave propagation, the two are intimately related. I believe the inter-relation will become clearer if it is thought of as follows:

Consider a signal voltage applied to one end of a cable, with the voltage applied to what we'll call the signal conductor being negative at a given instant, relative to the voltage applied at that instant to what we'll call the return conductor.

At that instant the applied voltage can be thought of as causing a VERY slow movement of electrons into the signal conductor, and a VERY slow movement of electrons out of the return conductor (at the source end). A VERY short time later DIFFERENT electrons will be caused to move at that same very slow speed out of the other end of the signal conductor (and into the load), while at that same instant still different electrons will be caused to move at that same very slow speed from the load into the return conductor.

The difference in time between when electrons slowly move into or out of the source end of the cable and when different electrons move into or out of the load end of the cable, in response to application of a given signal voltage, will correspond to the time it takes for the electromagnetic wave to propagate the length of the cable, which it does at a speed corresponding to something like 60% to 95% or so of the speed of light in a vacuum, the exact value depending in part on the dielectric constant of the insulation of the particular cable.

Thought of that way, despite the vast difference in speeds between electron movement and movement of the information-carrying electromagnetic wave, it does seem conceivable that the influence of a magnetic field on those electrons could also have some influence on the electromagnetic wave.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Geoff. I have no idea, though, what the answers might be to your questions. All I can say is that it seems conceivable that a magnetic field could affect the signal, although not necessarily to an audible degree.

Regards,
-- Al

05-11-14: Geoffkait
Al, I realize this next series of comments is beyond the scope of this discussion but I'd thought I'd throw it out there anyway, perhaps to see what you think....

Geoff, sounds like a sort of audio-related counterpart to feng shui. It's not for me, but to each his own....

Regards,
-- Al

I took a look at the article Joe referred to. On the surface it appears reasonably credible, and to have been written by a technically astute person. However, I do question several things:

1)The noise components in question are so low in level (on the order of 0.01% of the 120 volt 60 Hz component, corresponding to about 70 db down) that I would expect differences to be observed simply as a result of minor changes in the physical positioning of the probe (and especially its return lead) relative to the nearby chassis and/or transformer or other circuit components.

2)In that regard, some of the fuses, apparently the power amp mains fuses, were tested "in a Radio Shack 20 Amp in-line fuse holder with 12 gauge stranded wire leads." "Alligator clip leads were used" to connect to the holders of other fuses. Again, I would expect in both of these cases that the physical manipulation involved in changing fuse orientation would affect the results by introducing small changes in the physical positioning of the holder leads and/or the probe and/or its ground lead.

3)All of the foregoing increases the importance of doing what I talked about earlier, namely going back and forth between the two orientations several times, and verifying that the results are consistent. There is no indication that this was done.

4)I note that all of the measurements were confined to frequencies of less than 500 Hz. And (as one would hope) the amplitude of the 60 Hz component appears to be the same in all of the spectrum photos being compared. Which leads me to wonder what sort of magic enables the fuse, much less its orientation, to be able to distinguish between 60 Hz and other frequencies that are so close to 60 Hz. Aside from power regenerators (which generate a completely new AC waveform), I am unaware of how even a sophisticated and expensive power conditioner could be designed to affect frequencies which are so close to 60 Hz differently than they would affect 60 Hz, much less a fuse, much less the orientation of a fuse.

I am not trying to be argumentative either, and I appreciate that Joe brought this seemingly well done paper to the table, but those are my comments. Mapman makes good points as well, IMO. The article refers to "the direction of current (energy) flow." Current flow, which the fuse "knows" about, is back and forth. Energy transfer is from source to load, but as I indicated earlier in the thread I have yet to see a credible explanation of how a fuse would have any "knowledge" of the direction in which energy is being transferred.

Regards,
-- Al

05-13-14: Joe_appierto
Is it possible the fuse is constructed in such a way that it performs better one way than the other.

That of course goes to the heart of the debate, Joe. From a technical standpoint I cannot envision any mechanism by which that could occur. As you may have seen in reading through the thread, though, my instinct has been to not question the perceptions of those who report hearing differences (although I certainly would not rule out the possibility of flawed perception in all cases). Given the lack of technical plausibility, it seems to me that the most probable explanation is that reported differences are generally due to unrecognized extraneous variables. The leading candidate perhaps being differences in contact integrity as the two orientations are tried. Perhaps also differences in equipment warmup state, and fluctuations in AC line voltage or noise conditions.

Which is why I have emphasized the desirability of performing comparisons while going back and forth between the two orientations several times, before drawing any conclusions.

Best regards,
-- Al

Geoff, I have not asserted that the fuse manufacturers assert that their fuses should be oriented in the direction of "current flow." As you say, that might simply be something that has been "repeated a thousand times on the internet," though not particularly by the naysayers. Just take a look at the early posts in this thread, or at the statement in the paper Joe referenced that "both the HiFi Tuning and Isoclean fuses have arrows on their cases which indicate that they should be oriented in the direction of current (energy) flow."

What I have maintained is that the various explanations and measurements that have been offered as rationale for fuse directionality are flawed, and that IMO the explanation of reported differences that has the greatest probability of being correct is failure to recognize and control extraneous variables.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Joe. It so happens that I had provided my comments regarding that paper in another fuse-related thread, about two years ago.

Best regards,
-- Al

Wolfie, I usually don't point out typos or spelling errors, but in this case I suspect that for your post to convey what you intended "disperate" should be "disparate." Chances are "disperate" would be taken by many to be a misspelling of "desperate," which I don't think is what you meant.

Best regards,
-- Al

Now if I could just get the guard to return my posters to my cell...

They probably saw "The Shawshank Redemption."

:-)

Best regards,
-- Al