What is the science behind audiophile fuses?


There were many threads on the topic of "audiophile fuses" on this forum, and I sure don't want to open old wounds and trench warfare. The fuse on my preamp blew suddenly two days ago, which prompted me to search for a replacement. That's when I came across the term "audiophile fuse" and the fact that they demand far-out prices. Deeper curiosity brought me to several other fora, where users posted glowing praises about their Zero fuses and other exotica. Now I am a scientist, but not a physicist or electrical engineer: so please enlighten me! How can a fuse have an audible influence on the signal, when the signal does not even pass through it? How can a fuse be "directional" when it deals with alternate current? I mean, if I recall my university physics, a fuse is basically a safety valve and nothing more. Am I completely missing an important point here? My scientific field is drug discovery, and because of this background I am thoroughly familiar with the power and reality of the placebo effect. I that's what I am seeing here, or is it real physics? I need objective facts and not opinions, please. I really appreciate your help!

 
128x128reimarc

Showing 11 responses by thecarpathian

@tonywinga ,

Agreed. Our beliefs are our beliefs. Certainly no hard feelings and my apologies to all for side tracking the discussion. Because, you know, that rarely happens!🤓

I have never used an audiophile fuse so I can't comment on them either way.

But, I believe the forthcoming answers will be long on opinion and short on objective facts. 

Where’s millercarbon when you need him?

Down at the nearest body of water trying to walk on it...

 last time I checked, we didn’t know how gravity works.

I suggest you check again...

" But the sciences that are more theoretical, astrophysics, anthropolgy, etc are built on a fragile system of suppositions and yet people build a belief system around these theories as a way to find comfort in their existence."

I also don’t understand this statement. I think the exact opposite to be true.

People find comfort in their existence by building a belief system around religion, not scientific theories.

"Science can’t prove the earth is older than 6000 years. "

@tonywinga ,

I suggest a bit of in depth research on radiocarbon dating.

Extreme accuracy up to 12,000+ years. After that, less accurate to 50,000.

My eyes are open. If you had researched it, then you would know about dendrochronology and Bayesian Modeling and would know that it’s not art and guess work and wouldn’t have made that statement. It's come a long way since its inception.

Since radiocarbon dating is strictly for organic material, do you also discount methods to date the Earth itself, such as Rubidium-Strontium Dating, Potassium Argon Dating, and Uranium-Thorium-Lead Dating? If so, what is behind your belief?

@tonywinga ,

Where abouts are you down there?

Poor little Cedar Key is getting it good, but it looks like one of my favorite places, Apalachicola, is going to get spared. Might get a little dicey for Sopchoppy and Carrabelle, though. Hope you ride it out safely!