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 1 response by waytoomuchstuff

This brings me to a question I’ve considered submitting as a topic for the group:

This is an "audiophile" forum made up of individuals (in most cases) with vast experience(s) in auditioning, evaluating, and commenting on those observations. Tryiing new things (or, reworking old things) is a component of the "audiophile" experience.

The question is: "Why can’t we offer some level of respect to those who try something different, hear something good and share those results with the group? Why can’t we try to embrace those findings and give the person the benefit of the doubt that they did, in fact, hear something? Be somewhat curious about those observations even if the basis of the technology sounds somewhat weird to us?"

I get it that the "science" may push back against all that you’ve learned and/or experienced. And, some have suggested that those who claim to hear improvements in those products, technology, or catagory are biased, duped, gullible, or even need professional psychological help.

I funded a survey here a couple of months ago related to a "hot topic" on this forum. It was determined (by those who participated) that they had an 80+% high confidence level in their observations of the product catagory. Many were on their 3rd or 4th upgrade of this product catagory. Then, there were the "deniers" who rejected the premise completely and, therefore, did not try the product. And, there were those who conducted their due diligence, gave it a shot, and heard nothing. As the creator and admistrator of the survey, my final thought was that we should create a GoFundMe account for the "deniers" and send them to a place where there is a high confidence situation and let them listen to that system.

Personally, I believe that if something changes in the environment of the signal or power path, it’s going to change what happens at the other end. It’s feasible that those changes will be audibile, even it is isn’t measurable. I’m not a scientist. But, I do enjoy being proven wrong. It means I learned somthing that day.

Intellectual humility has it’s benefits. Perhaps, even better sounding systems if we’re willing to give things a try?