georgehifi wrote,
“Changing the fuse is like any other change in the power setup like a cord or conditioner
And this is not correct, as a mains cord because of it ’s construction has very different set of parameters to it’s length, it has resistance, capacitance and inductance.
A mains fuse as none of these, save for "maybe" a very minute (milli-ohm) amount of resistance, which means nothing. And could be regarded as differing ambient temperature when measured as Ralph or Al pointed out very early in this thread, when the milli-ohm resistance measurements were quoted as being "the reason for the massive sound quality improvements".”
>>>>Sorry, George, you and Al and Ralph are incorrect. Not even close! Nobody, especially HiFi Tuning, ever claimed the resistance measurements provided in the Data Sheets are responsible for the relatively large changes in sound observed by listeners. In fact, they say the OPPOSITE. Hel-loo! If any of you had ever bothered to read the HiFi Tuning data sheets, you would have seen that HiFi Tuning states UP FRONT that the very small measured differences in resistance do not (rpt not) account for changes in sound quality from fuse to fuse and from direction to direction they heard. So, obviously there must be other (unknown) factors are involved here besides resistance. And as I’ve oft stated, the HiFi Tuning Data Sheets resistance measurements PROVE that fuses are NOT symmetrical as naysayers would have us believe. And more to the point - the small resistance differences do not prove that large differences cannot be heard.
To whit, from the HiFi Tuning Data Sheets,
”The measurements done so far showed some measurable differences between fuse,
but didn ́t explain completely the sonic differences between fuses. One way to look at these phenomenon’s is, that music, containing many pulses can be limited by the electronics being in the reproduction chain. Fuses with better contact material (e.g. no corrosion) and overall better make will limit these pulses less. Another way to look at the problem is: like any wire or resistor fuses produce some thermal broadband noise. That noise depends mostly of the material used. The thermal increase of noise was measured at a current of 0,1 Amp. DC and the increase is given in dB.”
|
mapman’s negative results are an outlier. You know, what with many tens of thousands of positive results. Obviously something got messed up in mapman’s test, who knows what? Consequently his test results shall be thrown out. Fair enough?
|
Dear Al, you’re not following the logic of my last post. Repeated cutting and pasting of your old arguments from yesteryear do not (rpt not) bolster your case. |
Calm down, mapman. If you don’t understand why your negative test results should be thrown out just say you don’t understand. No need to blow a head gasket. Just to keep everyone up to date the score is approximateky 75,000 positive to 10 for the negative Nellies. I know, but who’s counting, right? 😬 See, mapman, that’s funny, no?
|
mapman
There is only one person/thing that should be thrown out and we all know who that is. Let's do a poll.
mapman, if you climbed a pole that would be a lot funnier. 😀
|
The results should be reproducible. I.e. produced INDEPENDENTLY by another person or persons on a different system(s). Ideally, many other INDEPENDENT persons and systems. This reproducibility helps minimize the affect of any errors on the part of persons conducting the test, test system and anything else that could produce erroneous results. |
Look, mapman, if you want to argue the least you could do is not put words in my mouth. I did not say throw out all the data points I don’t like. I said throw away the handful of negative results when there are 75,000 positive results worldwide for ALL FUSES since they first came out. You know, from satisfied users. See the difference? The handful of negative results are outliers. You happen to be one of the very few who reported negative results, when we limit the results to those on this forum. There was you and Wolfman. Did I miss anybody? Besides, as I said Don’t take it so so personally. 😬 But please don’t try to tell the rest of us Fuses don’t work or that we can’t hear. |
@mapman, uh, we’ve already covered where they came from. |
@gdhal, No, I actually don’t. You’re projecting.
|
Good catch! 😛 George almost has us going.
|
I’m afraid George and some others are giving real skeptics a bad name. You know what real skeptics are, they are intellectually honest people who are genuinely curious and will actually try to get the bottom of things, Fuses or whatever. A real skeptic is able to weigh all the evidence and may come to change his mind based on the evidence. The spectacle we’re witnessing here, by contrast, has no relation to real skepticism. It’s pseudo skepticism and bullying in its pure state. It’s minds that are made up. The pseudo skeptics actually assume an outcome of a test BEFORE the test even takes place. Hel-loo! In fact, if I can be so bold, some of these guys even make pseudo skeptics look bad. Other naysayers here must be cringing. Come on, people!
|
mapman
GK who are you to judge those you label "naysayers"!
Stick to the topic and stop trying to underhandedly discredit others.
>>>>I didn’t think there was anything underhanded about it. But I certainly appreciate why your ears might have been red.
|
Ah, I see the believers are still trying to convince the naysayers. Good luck with that.
|
The Peanut Gallery enters the fray with nothing to say. Hey, that rhymes! I’m a poet and didn’t know it. 😀
|
Good luck with all of that, oregonpapa. Whatever. |
The natives are restless tonight. Is there a full moon? Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! Urukoo, Buana. Urukoo, Buana. 🦍
|
Hey, what’s up with all the deleted posts? Are the little scamps misbehaving again?
|
It’s obviously a relentless inquisition. The cuteness and extreme courteousness is a new ploy designed to avoid blowback and moderation intervention and to ingratiate himself.
Yond Cassius has a mean and hungry look. - Shakespeare
There’s something rotten in Denmark. - Shakespeare |
gdhal is obviously a man on a mission. What that that mission is is not clear. Maybe it’s to save the world. 😳
|
I realize this remark will be met with some skepticism, but there has never been an audiophile tweak that has been proven to be a hoax or a fraud. Sorry for bursting any bubbles.
|
gdhal, you mean you’re finally turning yourself in? Good for you, Jack!
|
A rich audiophile has about as much chance of getting into Audio Nirvana as a camel 🐫 has of passing through the eye 👀 of a needle.
|
👨🚀
gdhal
geoffkait - “I realize this remark will be met with some skepticism, but there has never been an audiophile tweak that has been proven to be a hoax or a fraud. Sorry for bursting any bubbles.”
My proposed test isn’t meant to nor will it prove anything. But it can be useful to demonstrate if what someone claims to hear they actually can hear, or are merely in a state of delusion.
>>>>I realize in your mind you think it’s useful. I’ve already pointed out why you’re wrong.
In other words, you are correct. It won’t prove a fuse is or isn’t a hoax or a fraud. But it will provide opportunity to offer into evidence whether or not the impossible, is possible. Sorry for bursting any bubbles.
>>>>No, it won’t do anything of the sort. it doesn’t mean anything. Pop! 🎈 Besides, I will decide what’s possible, not you. And stop using my lines! By the way it sounds like you’re changing your tune. Aren’t you a big fuse skeptic? Oh, I get it, you just think the differences are too small to hear. Sitting in the fence, eh? Don’t tell me you’ve come over to the dark side.
|
prof
“uberwaltz,
Your question is like "how do you know magnetic bracelets don’t work in healing people don’t work if you haven’t tried it?"
Just as a magnetic bracelet is based on medical claims that have no main-stream medical backing and the "evidence" is of the unreliable personal anecdote variety, it’s the same with audiophile fuses.”
>>>>>No, it’s not like magnetic bracelets. Or other odd ball alternative healing remedies. Its not like dowsing. It’s not like sleeping on nails. It’s not like sleeping with a crystal under your pillow. It’s not like radionics. It’s not like UFOs, either. And it’s not like any of the other absurd examples skeptics come up with. Those would all be logical fallacies.
From Zen and the Art of Debunkery,
• Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a pre-emptive holy war against invading hordes of quackery-spouting infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending it.
• Reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such discovery were legitimate, then surely we would already know about it!"
• Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed unorthodox and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.
And finally, (gdhal are you listening?)
• Establish a crusading "Scientific Truth Foundation" staffed and funded by a hive of fawning acolytes. Then purport to offer a million-dollar reward to anyone who can repeatably demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon. Set the bar for paranormality nowhere in particular. Set the bar for repeatability at a "generous" 98%, safely ensuring that even normal scientific studies that demand a mere preponderance of evidence, or average results above chance, would fail to qualify for the prize.
|
In hindsight one of the very best names for one of my products was the Teleportation Tweak. You know, just based on all the comments it has garnered over the years, mostly from people just like mapman. No offense intended, Moops. I’m kind of surprised nobody has reported me to the Federal Communications Commision, I confess, or Homeland Security. My only regret, I suppose, and I’m nitpicking here, is that I’ve heard no mention whatsoever of a Nobel. What’s up with that?
On the Serengeti you don’t have to be the fastest Wildebeest. But you don’t want to be the slowest. |
👨🚀
gdhal
geoffkait - ...By the way it sounds like you’re changing your tune. Aren’t you a big fuse skeptic?...
No. I’m not a **fuse** skeptic. See my response 04-15-2018 10:21pm
I’m skeptical of individuals who state the **impossible**, which is that they can audibly detect with the naked ear whether or not an ordinary fuse/speaker wire has been reversed. See my 04-16-2018 5:52am post.
EDIT:
Pop! 🎈
>>>>>Wow, that’s a disturbing new development. But I get it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Who doesn’t? But let’s get real, spaceman. You are a fuse skeptic. Hel-loo! You just don’t seem to know what you are. If you don’t think anyone can hear it that makes you a fuse skeptic. You’re just playing some silly blind test game. It’s so obvious. Whew, that was a close call! For a second I thought one has gone over to the other side. False alarm.
|
Thanks, moopman, always good to get a system engineer’s perspective. 🤡
|
prof
geoffkait,
You are an interesting character .
I still appreciate your input into my crazy turntable isolation thread. And I thought I'd maybe figured you out, peeked beneath the curtain to see how you were having fun. But now I'm not so sure ;-)
Hey, whatev.
|
I think I see what the problem is. You guys are not asking nice enough. You have to put your back into it. How about, “Please try fuse. Pretty please.” And if that doesn’t work, “Pretty please with a cherry on top.” 🍒
|
Sanity check. The score is 75,000 positive to 100 (tops) negative. Are all 75,000 delusional? Is this just about the biggest conspiracy ever?! This is even better than UFOs! 👽 I’m afraid what we have here are not real skeptics. These are obviously just some guys out to have some fun and trying to think up a bunch of crazy stuff that sounds cool. Also obvious, they primary reason they won’t ever roll their sleeves up and investigate things like fuses is they wouldn’t want to face the music and admit they were wrong. Not in public.
|
One pseudo skeptic congratulating another. You don’t see that too often. 😛
|
Oh, geez, looks like it’s time to put on the old hip waders. It sure is gettin’ deep in here. 💩
|
The only question remaining is who is the horse?
|
By the way nobody is saying expectation bias, placebo effect or other related psychological phenomena don’t exist. But it’s extemely unlikely they explain all 75,000 positive results. Even the most obstreperous skeptic would agree with that. So that argument is probably best put to bed.
|
jetter
I enjoy Prof’s well thought out reasoning, regardless of any stance on fuses.
>>>It makes a lot of sense you would enjoy his posts as he comes across as if might have been high up the food chain at the James Randi Education Foundation or perhaps a disciple of Peter Aczel and Roger Modjeski. Perhaps he was an over-poster at Skeptics.com. Who knows? A colorful blend of Uber skepticism, anti tweaking, really really good grammar and home spun philosophy. 😀
|
analogluvr
@jay23 @jay23. I can’t speak for prof but the reason I am here is to provide some balance and sanity in a thread that is sorely lacking. I remember when I was a newbie and I actually believed in all this nonsense. I would’ve loved to save the money that I spent on it. Yes I have tried audiophile fuses and no I did not hear any difference. If there was any difference it was so small that it could not be heard or measured.
>>>>>Oh, brother! They’re starting to come out of the woodwork. You know, there are some perfectly valid reasons why some audiophiles have a proclivity for getting bad results with audiophile tweaks. Shall we review those reasons? Has anyone ever heard the expression, “all thumbs?” No offense, audiogluvr.
“People would generally be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little.” - PT Barnum
“An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.” - old audiophile axiom
“No matter how much you have in the end you would have had even more if you had started out with more.” - old audiophile axiom
|
Clearthink
"I believe that fuses make no audible difference in a Music Reproduction System and because of this faith I see no need to test the veracity of my faith or to challenge, expect or demand that others believe as I do."
It’s pretty easy to interpret that attitude/feeling/belief/faith whatever as unsupported and unapologetic denial. I actually *believe* that denial plays a big role in many attitudes here. “You can’t prove it!” 😡 maybe it’s time for an...intervention. Deprogramming. You know, like the Branch Davidians. Whatever. 😳
|
From wiki page on psedoskepticism:
In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term (pseodoskepticism) specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]
[your humble scribe’s insert)] Note: Marcello Truzzi (September 6, 1935 – February 2, 2003) was a professor of sociology at New College of Florida and later at Eastern Michigan University, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration,[1] and director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.]
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]
Denying, when only doubt has been established
Double standards in the application of criticism
The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
He characterized true skepticism as:[5]
Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
|
roberjerman
Fuses = Tonewood for electric guitars!
Gong!!
|
mitch2
Geoff, thanks for posting the pseudoskepticism dissertation. It seems old Marcello had a soft spot for the scientific agnostic (a.k.a. skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic, unbeliever, nonbeliever, rationalist).
Are you suggesting a new category here on the SA Blue thread or are none of the pseudoskeptics qualified to ascend to the level of a scientific skeptic?
BTW, I gotta ask, were you previously familiar with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), based on their study of the Teleportation Tweak?
>>> Maybe. 😬 I am loosely associated with this group,
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) was a research program at Princeton University that studied parapsychology.[1] Established in 1979 by then Dean of Engineering Robert G. Jahn, PEAR closed in February 2007, being incorporated into the "International Consciousness Research Laboratories" (ICRL).[2] The program was controversial.[3] 😳
|
mitch2
@geoffkait
“>>> Maybe. 😬 I am loosely associated with this group...”
Participant or subject? 😨
Not sure. 😳
Dealer. It’s kind of a long story. Let my word be a 🕯unto your feet. 👣
|
Somebody: “Why not try to use calmer verbiage instead of "snake oil?"” To which georgehifi retorted, “It’s known all over the world as "snake oil"” >>>>>It’s known by that (derogatory) name because that’s what pseuo scientists and pseudoskeptics all over the world call anything that looks like Woo. Duh! Then georgehifi wrote, “It’s a mains fuse that has AC on it, that changes 60 x a second, so for one how can it possibly be directional? 2, how can it effect the music signal "unless" it acts like a diode and tries to rectify the mains on one half of the cycle. But of course you wouldn’t have understood a thing I just said. So "snake oil" and it’s alternatives I’m afraid is all you understand.” >>>>Sorry, George. The reason why AC fuses are directional just like DC fuses has been explained. Actually it’s been explained a bunch of times. It’s not rocket science. 🚀 Were you sleeping in class again? 😴 From your own words you obviously don’t even know what the word directionality means. What on Earth are you even talking about?! This is what happens when you assume something. You get all wrapped around the axel. Then georgehifi decided to add, Dennis Had director/founder of "Cary Audio", opinion on snake oil fuses ect. https://youtu.be/xLQsEeBKg1E?t=1791 >>>>>As I’ve oft opined, high end amp manufacturers apparently have the hardest heads of all the major food groups. Dennis Had, like Roger Modjeski, is about two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. You could say he’s been Had. 🤡 Geoff Kait Machina Dramatica We do Artificial Atoms Right |
georgehifi
geoffkait - “Dennis Had, like Roger Modjeski, is about two paradigm shifts behind the power curve. You could say he’s been Had.”
You are saying you know more than these guys, and many more.
>>>>You’re very quick on the draw today, George. 🤠
|
I had an OPPO. In fact I had the world’s most modded OPPO. An upgrade is needed. Case solved. I didn’t even have to do a blind test. See, that’s what happens when you talk the talk AND walk the walk, spaceman. 🤠
Who knows, if OPPO has used upgraded fuses or put the stock fuses in the right direction maybe they’d still be in business. 😀 |
The argument regarding the fuse on the Oppo back panel is a Strawman argument. Why, you ask innocently? Because in the previous models the fuse was located inside the unit, as it was in mine. Talk amongst yourselves. Smoke if ya got em.
|
Exactly! It was not soldered on my 103 either. Even if it had been soldered I would have UNsoldered it. I thought I mentioned I bipassed my fuse. Perhaps I didn’t. Trust me the world most modded OPPO would not (rpt not) have a fuse in it. Problem solved! 😀
|
spaceman, Do I need a decoder ring to figure out what in heck you’re trying to say? 👨🚀
|
Moops, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. 😀 A hopped up Sony Walkman is a lot funnier than a hopped up Moopman. 🤠 I may set the bar. You’re always at the bar.
|
I would still be ahead of you, moopman. You’re on the fritz everyday. Must be that Amish upbringing catching up to you. Have you given any consideration to an education refresh? 🤠
|
👨🚀
gdhal
^Even you have to admit this is great humor though! 😄
EDIT:
But not as great as mapman's humor earlier though 🤣
>>>>>moopman is my favorite clown, well, next to you. 🤡
|
