wolf_garcia

... If "magic" fuses actually did what they claim, everybody get on board with 'em....they don't and we're not ...

If your "magic" fuses don't do what's claimed, that's snake oil! Fraud! Now, thanks to the work of Tuttle, et al., the template has been created for you to profit enormously from your wisdom while also serving your fellow  audiophile. Here ya' go:

You Can Get Rich From 'Snake Oil'!

I’ve seen so many threads, not this one, where an expensive power cord manufacturer claims are declared snake oil because it measures the same as the PC obtained from Amazon.  People forget that “science” is not a static thing and with time, our understanding of the ‘science’ changes.  So, like the op, I tend to trust my ears, but will admit to the possibility of bias.  The only thing that I know for sure is that when you hear a politician claiming something is “settled science”, it is time to find more tax shelters.

       The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exists a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.

         If their result differs from that of others, the aspects that they can't discern CERTAINLY MUST BE the product of the others' imagination (OR, "snake oil).

             Of this they are certain: it CAN'T be THEIR system, room, or ears!

                                            Perish the thought!

I have no opinion on whether they work because I have not done any serious listening to various fuses.  But the current high end fuse that costs $600 makes no sense because, at that price one is probably better off bypassing the fuse.  It is crazy to be in a situation where you would be saying something like: "Thank god the power transformer blew fast enough to preserve the fuse."

I had to jump in once more: mitch2 made a note-worthy comment about the role of capacitors in an amp or pre. They are there to satisfy demand for peak power in highly dynamic musical passages. The quicker they respond the better - and the more they cost: here, high cost directly translates into audio quality.

Many contributions seem to try relativizing the role of what they call "science" in assessing effects of audiophile fuses, going so far as to claim we don't even understand the "true" nature of electricity. Well, as far as every-day electricity is concerned, I think Maxwell gave us everything we need to make accurate predictions (which is what science is about). Yes, on the quantum level we might still be in the modeling phase, but that degree of granularity bears most probably no influence on the audio experience. I mean, even the LHC in Geneva uses the same basic electricity and electro-engineering principles, all the way to superconductivity. Now, room-temperature superconductivity might indeed breed a new and better generation of audio equipment, but just not yet. And no, I won't be using liquid Helium anytime soon to fire up my audio gear. As for all matters in life the same tenet holds for scientific claims: extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence! The audiophile experience should not be a religion, lest we fall into the trap of "believe" vs. "evidence". My original question should have been more focused perhaps: "Can anyone in this esteemed forum share  experiences - good or bad - with so-called audiophile fuses?" Formulating my question in this way should exclude theorizing on either side of the opinion-spectrum, namely dogma without supporting or damaging evidence. And to satisfy this demand, we do not even have to resort to Einstein or Maxwell, or Lord Kelvin with his infamous statement about human flight. No, we just have to sit down and listen: do we enjoy what we hear? Do we enjoy it more after exchanging one fuse for another? Do we perhaps hear new things in a familiar recording? It's really simple, actually, and quite down-to-earth. But it requires ear-wax removal - in the literal and metaphorical sense - to lead to accurate and valid and reproducible results. That's the only information I was after when posting my original question. Only AFTER we have the data from these experiences - hopefully with more users having similar experiences  (moving towards statistical relevance here), should we begin to make sense of our observations, and perhaps even formulate a new hypothesis trying to explain what we observed that cannot be accurately explained by existing theories. That's how science works, not the other way around.