Upgrading Fuses

Don't you have any other friends to play with? Try your best to comprehend what I'm writing this time. That way you can hopefully do a better job with accuracy in your interpretations of my postings.

09-28-11: Vhiner
"I'm a bit surprised that you're willing to bet money on an unsubstantiated opinion that Conrad-Johnson has measurements to support all of its design decisions. Please post the supporting document!"

>>> What "unsubstantiated opinion"?!! CJ, like *just* about all major audio equipment manufacturers, employ engineers that design and thoroughly test their circuits which may incorporate whatever topology and quality components to achieve their design goals! The proof is in their measured test results, data, etc. and verifiable by anyone (buyer) with appropriate test equipment! If CJ is willing to share their measurements with you, hence your verification, thus NOT an "opinion"! Understand the difference?

Vhiner: "Now, back to my main question: could you please post the academic studies you consult before you buy your equipment. I'm eager for the bedtime reading."

>>> Every piece of my audio equipment has documented specifications from the manufacturer, all of which are verifiable via test equipment measurements, thus holding the manufacturer liable should results not match based on their testing criteria. Same goes for most electronics in general besides audio.

Now, I'll ask you again! Where is all the documented test results or written specifications from the manufacturer's of your fancy fuses? Gee, why is it that they don't offer any? What about the ever-growing list of exotic cable manufacturers? ...Printed specifications for performance attributes other than wire gage and plug specifications? Hmmm, yeah!

Metro04,

Thanks for being so patient with me. Are you saying Conrad-Johnson has data proving and explaining that it is in fact the teflon capacitors that cause their equipment to sound different from their competitors' equipment? It could be that they do, but unless you can provide that data, your supposition is unsubstantiated. At least that's what unsubstantiated means according to my silly old dictionary. But if substantiated fact actually means anything you happen to say or suppose, then I think I understand. No one wants another "pure unsubstantiated opinion" ticket from the Truth Patrol.

As for your use of the word " proof", well you really have revolutionized the use of that noun. Again, I apologize for being so slow in comprehending the new definition and application. You have demanded academic studies in past posts. I'd like to read some that you've used in your equipment selection process. I've been reading far too many "audio" publications which you've ridiculed, for good reasons I'm sure. Please give us your top ten academic journal articles (citations would be helpful) so we can share the wealth.

Paul McGowan just wrote in his PS Tracks blog on Wednesday that, "Two amps that measure the same don't sound the same." That's odd. People who aren't blessed with your level of genius might conclude that Mr. McGowan is implying that some sound eludes current measurement tools. But, again, I'm sure your background, training and ethics are far more "pure" than that of Mr. Gowan, Mr. Hartley and Mr. Atkinson.

Vhiner... "Measure" the same.

As I have pointed out, the human ear, which we all agree is the ultimate judge of how it sounds, can be used to make a measurement of any difference between two audio amps by listening to the null across the hot output terminals. Since "difference" is what we are interested in it makes sense to measure (listen to) difference. Small difference is almost impossible to objectively detect in the presence of the strong signal. "Almost impossible" opens the door to subjective opinions as we see in this discussion.

Well, I don't recall William Zane Johnson of Audio Research fame providing endless technical documentation of why the famed SP3-1A preamp sounded better than the solid state competition. As I recall, curious, suspicious, and doubting potential buyers auditioned the product at the store, brought it home for the weekend to run it through its paces, counted their gold pieces, and then many brought in their old unit and treasure to make a trade. There was no trumpeting by Audio Research of their "proof" backed up by specifications of why their preamp sounded better (in fact, when compared to the solid state competition of its time, its specs were not as good) it just did. (Not that the SP-3 had bad specs!) People that heard the difference, may have questioned why, but still plunked down their dollars to bring music into their homes. The tube revolution was on. Even today, according to documents I've read, there are theories why tube equipment gets the music right but no exact scientific explanation that all agree on. (Something about electrons buzzing through a vaccuum?) Today solid state and tube equipment both sound excellent, though in general, getting the best from solid state is more expensive then a comparable tube circuit. Ok, my purpose here is not to debate the virtues of tubes vs. solid state, (I own both), but to illustrate that it is possible for an audio component and its included parts to make music without a technical, measured explanation. I might audition a component that makes me curious as to why it sounds so musical, examine the specs, and try to find a reason for the sound, but I'd never even think of auditioning a piece of equipment in my system by examining the specs first.

To me, these stupid little fuses that have caused such a debate, make music happen in my system. It would be interesting to know why, but in the end I don't really care.

So if interested in finding the truth for yourself, order some fuses from a respected retailer with a 30 day return policy, keep an open mind (if you still have one), and see if these expensive (but not unreasonably so when compared to price of your system) little ceramic and metal cylinders help you discover some notes you have not heard before.

Oh, and please honestly report your findings here, especially if you've found a way to measure why they make music.

"Oh, and please honestly report your findings here, "

Have been thinking about all the things that get in the way of meaningful findings and would prevent 'honest' testing, if you don't believe in measurement or double blind tests.

1. Limitations in system performance & in hearing capabilities.
2. Limitations in acoustic memory.
3. Normal listening bias associated with testing something new (we listen more intensely when trying to detect a change than we do when comparing the change to a "known" system. Usually that means we 'hear' more when listening to the changed system).
4. Long term bias due to existing beliefs, ego, desire for improvement, etc.
5. Transient bias due to particular mood during listening session.
6. Transient perception differences due to exposure to noise, quality of sleep, minor sinus issue, etc. before listening session.
7. Difficulty of eliminating all equipment & environmental variables that could confuse the testing.
8. Most likely additional items that I haven't though of.