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 wont 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 dont 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 |
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 |
Dismissive? Not at all. I am currently contemplating purchasing a new phono preamp and possibly new speakers; and, God knows, where those roads will take me cabling-wise. So, yes, I think it's a pretty good assumption that those changes will be more significant than new fuses, and since there are only so many hours in the day and I reserve a majority of those hours for music rather than equipment, well, fuses will have to wait? However, I must say that I find it telling that after several paragraphs of brilliant commentary :-) supporting your point of view, you choose to harp on that particular detail. Gray, anyone? |
Frogman wrote,
"Frankly, I have little interest in trying them at this point in time since I have much bigger fish to fry as concerns the tuning of my system."
Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, and I trust you'll forgive me for saying so, but your statement sounds just a teeny bit dismissive, no offense intended. I wish you could have been here to hear my new liquid nano Super Fuse from Audio Magic when I inserted it into my Woo Audio WA6 headphone amp. And I wish you could also have been here to hear it when I reinserted it in the correct direction. |
One basic and apparently irreconcilable difference between the two schools of thought in this and other similar debates concerns the question of wether perceived audible differences in the sound of music can be explained via numbers, specs, and other results of the available test equipment and of electronic theory as we understand it today. The insistence on the part of one camp to rely entirely on these to explain all that the human ear/brain tells the other camp is possible is, in my opinion, flawed and does not honor the depth of the complexity of the sound of music (long-held ideas about things like the frequency response limits of the human ear/brain have been revised in recent times). To my way of thinking this also points to a contradiction and a hypocracy of sorts when one considers how much effort is often spent advocating the sanctity of subjectivity as concerns personal taste in music, or the mistaken idea that "there is no absolute when it comes to accuracy in the sound of music". Some want answers and explanations (I include myself) for these phenomena, but some are also not able to accept the very real possibility (and probability) that we simply don't have the understanding of all the interactions and cause/effect relationships that come into play around these issues; especially, because some of these relationships involve key aspects of the "sound" of music that probably can't be explained via science: emotional content and the relationship between that and those aspects of the sound of music that we do understand more fully; things like frequency response, harmonic distortion etc. If a person is of the mindset that this kind of thinking is a bunch of bs, that science always rules and that there is a clear demarcation line between the realm of science and the realm of human emotion and perception then any debate is pointless. I am always reminded of the monumental effort that some have put, via science, into trying to figure out why a Strad sounds the way it does and they have always come up empty handed. Some will claim that the sound of a Strad has, in fact, been replicated by modern violin makers; and, yet, the supposed "proof" of this can be heard to be false even over the speaker in my IPad.
Why there is resistance to acknowledging that what some do hear is very real FOR THEM I find very interesting, and makes me wonder how much of that is a sense of insecurity about possibly not being able to hear what others can; sometimes without even trying to see if they can. As with many things the answer can probably be found in the gray area between the black and the white; some personality types are more comfortable than others being in the gray. I understand the validity in wanting answers and I commend those with an evenhanded viewpoint (like Al's) which seeks to attribute the perceived phenomena to other variables. I found a recent comment by Al particularly interesting:
****All I can say is that it seems conceivable that a magnetic field could affect the signal, although not necessarily to an audible degree.****
That comment goes to a fundamental issue. In my opinion, anything that one does that affects the signal to any degree is potentially audible. Issues of probability or practicality aside the real question then becomes: where does one draw the line? Are we prepared to state that, without a doubt, we have a complete understanding of the capabilities of the human hearing mechanism; that science has taught us all that we need to know about it? Moreover, are we prepared to dismiss the obvious: that some listeners simply have, because of experience, training, or nature, a more acute listening ability than others?
Back to the issue of fuse directionality. As I have said I have no experience with high-end fuses; never mind their directionality. Frankly, I have little interest in trying them at this point in time since I have much bigger fish to fry as concerns the tuning of my system. However, I am comfortable with this (gray) possibility: 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. |
Almarg, I remember reading your response. I would take exception to the use of the word, "insignificant." This word does have one quite specific definition in sampling theory, but generally it is just dismissive. Since you are not talking about random samples, I guess you mean it to be dismissive. I see no real way to make it so. |
|
Thank God I don't know much about electronics. If I did I might trust my ears less and not be willing to experiment with fuse direction.
I found with my HiFi Tuning Supreme fuses that they do make a nice improvement. My ears tell me that they do sound better in one direction over the other. Which is good so what I don't know about electronics doesn't interfere what what my ears don't have to understand why one direction sounds obviously better than the other. |
|
Al & Geoff,
My intention wasn't to stir a pot that's already messy.
The review thread I quoted from may have been less than rigorous in terms of design and the question of replication is ambiguous.
If the reader wishes, I recommend going through a research study done by GECOM Technologies GmbH that addresses such areas as resistance, noise, and voltage drops. The section on resistance shows measurements orienting the various fuses tested in both directions.
There are explanation and summary sections for the tests performed although the raw data and testing methodologies will be of interest to some, I'm sure.
Anyway, here's the link to the tests. Please note that you can download a PDF of the tests as well.
http://ultrasystem.com/usfeaturedprodsFUSE_LIT.html
Regards,
Joe |
Al, hi, yes that's exactly what I mean, that Joe made the statement, not HiFi Tuning or Isoclean. |
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 |
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 |
"Mapman, please just go ahead and buy any fuse that works and stop trying to muck up the discussions that other wish to have with more empirical listeners."
Tbg, my ears tell me I am an empirical listener just as yours tell you which direction the fuse sounds better.
Sorry if my views and opinions conflict with yours. Im sure it is very inconvenient. |
Mapman, please just go ahead and buy any fuse that works and stop trying to muck up the discussions that other wish to have with more empirical listeners. |
"Is it possible the fuse is constructed in such a way that it performs better one way than the other."
That is a very good question! |
Al,
Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and raising the interesting points you do in your post. A technical person, I'm not. :)
That having been said, I do hear differences (a) when introducing after market fuses in the CD player, power amp, integrated amp and speakers that I've tried them in, and (b) when reversing the orientation of same. Why? Not a clue.
A question for you, if I may. You mention not knowing "how a fuse would have any "knowledge" of the direction in which energy is being transferred." Is it possible the fuse is constructed in such a way that it performs better one way than the other.
Just wondering.
Regards,
Joe |
Al and Mapman, I don't mean to put your feet to the fire, but could either one of you kindly post a quote from an aftermarket fuse manufacturer, any manufacturer, where he states that "the fuse arrow is supposed to be in the direction of current flow." I'm pretty sure this whole "in the direction of current flow" is just something that naysayers, in lockstep, picked up on after it was repeated a thousand times on the Internet. Kinda like Morphic Resonance, the hundred monkeys thing. It's called a Strawman Argument. Hel-loo! |
ALso, why burden people with a directional fuse and provide no useful guidance on which way to instal it in teh first place?
Why not just make it work similarly well both ways and save people the work of trying to figure it out themselves?
I can buy a good quality commercial fuse from many reputable vendors that have no directional connotations for a fraction of the cost.
Directional fuses are a bad idea, period. When I need one, I will buy a good one with the right specs that is NOT directional so as not to have to guess. |
"Mapman, how many times must you recite your mantra?"
Until someone acknowledges that there is no direction with AC current so there cannot be a right or wrong.
THis is a fact and valid point. TO ignore it shows a disregard for facts when they stand in the way of one's agenda.
That's not to say that changing direction may or may not make a difference case by case for many reasons already cited ad naseum.
Whoever wants to tread these waters based on speculation alone more power to you.
TBg, you have Machina Dynamica on your side at least, if not anything usable by the people who actually make the fuses. |
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 |
Mapman, next thing is you're going to be telling us the voltage is alternating. Then you're probably going to tell us the audio signal is alternating. sheesh! |
Mapman, how many times must you recite your mantra? If there is a difference with a change of the fuse's direction, this doesn't matter. We don't care that you are hung up on alternating cables. Why do you think all manufacturers run the "hot" to the input wire of the ac transformer and then to the circuit and the neutral to the return?
But if it sound different with changes of the fuse direction, it is real and we don't care what you think. |
"So there would seem to be no way to know which direction is correct, although in this case the writer at least cites some measurements made, FWIW."
Even worse...there IS no direction with AC current, so there CANNOT be a correct or incorrect one. |
"Second, there was less line noise when measured with the orientation of the fuse along current flow within the circuit.Second, there was less line noise when measured with the orientation of the fuse along current flow within the circuit."
It's alternating current folks. There IS no direction of current flow to align with.
That's the basic fallacy of directional fuses that people who want to believe choose to ignore, whatever their findings may be. So there would seem to be no way to know which direction is correct, although in this case the writer at least cites some measurements made, FWIW.
One accounting in a blog should not be taken for more than its worth, though those looking to build a case surely will.
|
There are two points of interest, at least to me and some others, in the quoted review. First, there are differences in the resulting sound depending upon orientation. Okay, granted that's subjective. But what isn't in this hobby of ours? Second, there was less line noise when measured with the orientation of the fuse along current flow within the circuit.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. |
Well, actually, no there isn't in that which way DOES AC current flow again exactly? Both ways I think. That is why it is called alternating current. So there is no direction even in which to align anything.
So that means you can choose to try both ways and pick whichever you like best for whatever reason.
No wonder people like these things. They give you something to think about and you can NEVER be wrong!
Gotta love that.... |
" I saw the arrows as indications that there was something going on inside the "fuses" that required a specific orientation."
Well, what do the makers say about that?
IF nothing, then we are back where we started...he said she said.
If they do, then at least there is something material to talk about. |
Joe_appierto, nice post. At last someone, who understands science and with the necessary gear, does a test. |
The quote below is from a multi-part thread on the Polk Audio Forum entitled "Studies On Residential Power Line Noise - Part 7: HiFi Tuning and Isoclean Fuses".
"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. Some people have scoffed and ridiculed the idea of "directional" AC fuses. Rather than something to ridicule, I saw the arrows as indications that there was something going on inside the "fuses" that required a specific orientation. Initially, my ears told me that the fuses sounded better in the direction of the arrows than against it. Noise spectrum measurements with an oscilloscope verified that the line noise was lower in the direction of the arrows than against it."
So, it would appear, at least according to the author that fuse direction does have a measureable bearing on performance. |
Might email NASA or AES. Hey, I wonder what The Amazing Randi would have to say? |
****I'll post once and once only.****
Well, la-di-da!
****And if they don't you know what that means.****
Do you really think those guys have the time or inclination to post in an audiophile forum about something like this? That they would not respond means nothing. |
I'll post once and once only. Those that belive AC mains fuses are directional, can easily prove their point, by getting someone of high regard like Nelson Pass or John Curl to back them up on this. Here are their PM's so you can ask them to respond. And if they don't you know what that means. Nelson Pass contact via email at First Watt. nelson@passlabs.comJohn Curl contact via PM at DIYAudio. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=5524Cheers George |
Mapman, just can't stay away, huh? I actually consider you a groupie, no offense.
:-) |
" So, it sounds like you and Al would not be interested in feng shui type ideas even if they improved the sound? Well, that's a fine howdyado. Geez, you guys really are set in your ways."
I can only speak for me, not Al.
Pick up a few follower's of your ideas and lets talk in 100 years or so.
I might even settle for a groupie or two. |
Mapman, I thought you were sidelined. I know, you just can't resist, right? So, it sounds like you and Al would not be interested in feng shui type ideas even if they improved the sound? Well, that's a fine howdyado. Geez, you guys really are set in your ways. |
Al, that's a VERY generous analogy! :^) |
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 |
Stanford researchers control light using synthetic magnetism.
I haven't been able to replicate this at home in my audio room yet, but I am working on it. Tom |
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. As I think I probably mentioned somewhere along the line on this thread, I have been using magnets in audio applications for a very long time. Furthermore, I have found them to have a positive effect on the sound. But the kicker is where I am using magents. I am using them on windows, on doors, on transformers, on cell phones, on TVs, on wood book cases, on mirrors, among other things. See, I told you it was beyond the scope. Lol. Now, having said all that I should also mention that the color of the magnet is quite important and depends on the object on which it is placed. For example, for steel blue, for aluminum red, for glass green. |
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 |
Al, nice post but I have a few questions. One is if it's true that magnets can affect the electrons in the conductor how would they affect them? Logically, I suppose it's possible that electrons can be attracted by the positive pole of a magnet or repelled by the negative pole, you know, given that electrons have a negative charge. But if what just said is true the what would that mean? If electrons are attracted by the magnet then wouldn't the electrons more or less pool around the location of the magnet? If they are repelled by the magnet which way would they move? If the magnet is circular and attached around the magnet how would that affect the electrons - repel or attract or both? If the electrons are neither attracted to the magnet or repelled by it, how do you think they are being affected? And if the electrons are being attracted and or repelled how does that affect the sound one way or another? |
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 |
"Mapman, basic but ignored."
I'll agree on that and say goodnight. |
To all, before we too sidetracked, let's try to focus on what we were talking about for a second. What we were talking about is the electromagnetic wave that is the audio signal. We only mentioned magnetic fields when magnets were brought up. Now, just to set the record straight, the magnetic field induced by current flow through wire or by a transformer is not the same as the electromagnetic field of the signal which, as we already pointed out, travels at the speed of light, or close to it, you know, being that the electromagnetic wave is made up of photons. The magnetic field is a different beast, as Mapman learned in Electricity 101, assuming he remembers anything. (He can always consult Maxwell's equations if he needs a fresher.) 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 |
Mapman, basic but ignored. Any motion of a wire results in unwanted signal induced by the motion reflected in the magnetic field and thus into your music. |
Magnetic fields is pretty basic Elecronics 101. No mysteries there, only how it relates and to what extent case by case. It usually does whenever transformers are involved.
SOme tweak-mongers would have us tweak shield to compensate for earths magnetic field even. ANd stick gadgets on our refrigerators. DOn't forget about that..... |
Tbg, if folk aren't wrapping their toroidal transformers with annealed mu metal they are nowheresville. There are a lot of things going on under the radar that will come out at a later date, bye for now... |
Geoffkait, I aware of all you say about magnetic fields, etc. I also know that many have worked with magnetics for years. I knew a guy who put a series of transformers in a box at right angles to each other so as to reduce the influence of the magnetic fields. I have had repeated discussions with some involved and have often been told that they cannot really explain why but that the use of magnets does work to achieve their goals. In the case of Rick Schultz's "magnetic conduction," I would have to agree that it works. I guess the conclusion I would come to is that science should pay more attention to these questions. |
Theaudiotweak, is it possible to make a magnet fuse. If Rick Schultz can make magnetic cables, it seems that you could make one end a north pole end and the other a south pole end.
As you know, I really did not want to go without fuse protection, but were there a magnetic fuse, I would give it a real try. |
