Fuses

@avitacom  so basically what you are saying is....don't do your research, trust the experts....
I have been hearing a  whole lot of that lately.....

No, that’s not what I said.
What I said is what I posted.
Enjoy your music!

millercarbon ...

Thanks for the info on the QSA Violet fuse. I'm curious ... by any chance
can you feel any roughness under the two pieces of black tape, like maybe a rough sand-like substance? 

Yes, please get an SR Purple to make the comparison. That would be very interesting. 

Frank

Under? They are stuck on the paper. I will have to pull and take a better look. Was not a lot of time the other night.

I’m one of the few contributors to this thread thinking scientifically.

This "scientifically" trope is so tiresome. I blame our system of so-called education. It would seem to have gone nowhere but downhill since I was in it. I can still clearly recall this being covered perfectly clearly in school.

The easiest way to explain it is to think of two related but different sets of phenomena. One psychological/behavioral, the other material/physical. For some reason certain people here are fixated on and obsess with the material/physical even though the subject - audio - is clearly behavioral/psychological. A categorical error they never do recover from.

For behavioral/psychological science we have a number of different means of observation. We can try and observe everything all the time, we can observe everything at intervals, etc. If we choose to observe only certain things at certain times there is nothing more or less scientific about it, for the simple fact science is not a set of procedures. Science is not, "You must measure this, and you must measure that." Science is a method.

Would be so nice if people would understand just this one point. Science is a method. There is nothing about a meter or oscilloscope that magically makes them scientific. There is nothing about listening evaluations that dooms them to being unscientific. There simply is no way of saying something is unscientific simply because someone says, "I heard it" instead of, "I measured it." It just don’t work that way.

This is why reviewers always tell you at least a little about how they do their comparison. It isn’t for flavor or style. It is for context. Also it is important to know the thing we are comparing is really the thing we are comparing. If five things are changed at once we can say what we heard but in no way can we say which one of the five accounts for what we heard. Too many variables. This would be unscientific. It would be illogical too, to say the least.

That is why for example my system page is posted, and that is definitely why I explained what I did in warming up and how my system changes as it warms up. This gives my observations credibility as everyone knows gosh millercarbon is aware his system changes so he knows to expect that and what he says about the fuse probably really is about the fuse, he is not being misled by warm-up. See?

A serious person who understands, or at least wants to understand, would be thinking along these lines. To call something "unscientific" while demonstrating a false notion of the word, well let’s just say it doesn’t exactly burnish the rep.