One basic and apparently irreconcilable difference between the two schools of thought in this and other similar debates concerns the question of wether perceived audible differences in the sound of music can be explained via numbers, specs, and other results of the available test equipment and of electronic theory as we understand it today. The insistence on the part of one camp to rely entirely on these to explain all that the human ear/brain tells the other camp is possible is, in my opinion, flawed and does not honor the depth of the complexity of the sound of music (long-held ideas about things like the frequency response limits of the human ear/brain have been revised in recent times). To my way of thinking this also points to a contradiction and a hypocracy of sorts when one considers how much effort is often spent advocating the sanctity of subjectivity as concerns personal taste in music, or the mistaken idea that "there is no absolute when it comes to accuracy in the sound of music". Some want answers and explanations (I include myself) for these phenomena, but some are also not able to accept the very real possibility (and probability) that we simply don't have the understanding of all the interactions and cause/effect relationships that come into play around these issues; especially, because some of these relationships involve key aspects of the "sound" of music that probably can't be explained via science: emotional content and the relationship between that and those aspects of the sound of music that we do understand more fully; things like frequency response, harmonic distortion etc. If a person is of the mindset that this kind of thinking is a bunch of bs, that science always rules and that there is a clear demarcation line between the realm of science and the realm of human emotion and perception then any debate is pointless. I am always reminded of the monumental effort that some have put, via science, into trying to figure out why a Strad sounds the way it does and they have always come up empty handed. Some will claim that the sound of a Strad has, in fact, been replicated by modern violin makers; and, yet, the supposed "proof" of this can be heard to be false even over the speaker in my IPad.
Why there is resistance to acknowledging that what some do hear is very real FOR THEM I find very interesting, and makes me wonder how much of that is a sense of insecurity about possibly not being able to hear what others can; sometimes without even trying to see if they can. As with many things the answer can probably be found in the gray area between the black and the white; some personality types are more comfortable than others being in the gray. I understand the validity in wanting answers and I commend those with an evenhanded viewpoint (like Al's) which seeks to attribute the perceived phenomena to other variables. I found a recent comment by Al particularly interesting:
****All I can say is that it seems conceivable that a magnetic field could affect the signal, although not necessarily to an audible degree.****
That comment goes to a fundamental issue. In my opinion, anything that one does that affects the signal to any degree is potentially audible. Issues of probability or practicality aside the real question then becomes: where does one draw the line? Are we prepared to state that, without a doubt, we have a complete understanding of the capabilities of the human hearing mechanism; that science has taught us all that we need to know about it? Moreover, are we prepared to dismiss the obvious: that some listeners simply have, because of experience, training, or nature, a more acute listening ability than others?
Back to the issue of fuse directionality. As I have said I have no experience with high-end fuses; never mind their directionality. Frankly, I have little interest in trying them at this point in time since I have much bigger fish to fry as concerns the tuning of my system. However, I am comfortable with this (gray) possibility: if we are willing to concede that the tiny impact of "extraneous variables" like changes in contact integrity may be audible and may explain the experience of the believers; if the sound of music is that vulnerable to the effects of such seemingly unimportant physical variables (and I believe it is) then it makes sense to me that the inevitable gray areas in electrical theory would also have an effect. Or are these electrical theories absolutely ironclad; with absolutely no possibility of revision? Al? Logic tells me that they probably are not.
