Fuses that matter.

Do you "re-fuse?" (my 32nd most cerebral pun of the decade). Follow the rubber line. Now I feel I have to take every piece of my gear apart and see if the wires are "direction appropriate"...would an electron microscope be useful in detecting the optimal wire grain orientation direction? Damn...this is gonna take forever....

Wolf_garcia, Forever? What about house wiring. You have no idea how long and painful it was to pull and reinsert wires in opposite direction. I'm working on power company to do the same but for some reason they are very resistant to this idea (definitely not audiophiles)

Although I now own them, I don't take fancy fuses very seriously. I bought them largely out of curiosity, after reading dozens of testimonials from audiophiles who reported hearing results. I too thought I heard results. I'm happy to be wrong about that. I don't mind being the victim of placebo, and I don't feel the impulse to defend my initial listening impressions. Listening impressions, and particularly the inferences derived from them, can be mistaken for all kinds of reasons.

Having said that, I tend to take audiophiles' listening impressions at face value, unless I have a good reason not to. Sometimes I have a good reason. But most of the time, I recognize that he was there in the room and I wasn't, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he heard what he heard. The benefit of the doubt can always be withdrawn, and very little is lost except some conversation. All of this is prologue to what I'd really like to say, which is an observation followed by a question. The observation is this...

It's widely (though not universally) acknowledged by people who are both audiophiles and experts in electronic design that, in addition to the Known Parameters that affect sound quality, it is likely that there are Unknown Parameters that affect sound quality. Those Unknown Parameters are either unmeasured or unmeasurable, though that could change with the progress of knowledge, either theoretical or applied.

And the question is this...

For those who acknowledge the likelihood of Unknown Parameters, what is the standard by which Possible Unknown Parameters are distinguished from Impossible Unknown Parameters? Since by definition it cannot be the standard of prevailing knowledge, it must be something else. But what? Intuition?

If the answer is intuition, I can accept that. I believe intuition is worth something. In fact, I believe it's worth quite a bit. But I will point out that intuition, even the intuition of experts, has been wrong innumerable times, with consequences ranging from trivial to amusing to catastrophic. In fact, there is reason to believe that intuition is wrong far more often than it is right, for the reason that there are VASTLY more ways of being wrong than being right.

So again, what is the standard by which Possible Unknown Parameters are distinguished from Impossible Unknown Parameters? I ask this because, IMHO, the idea that wires are directional or that fuses can affect sound quality, while they may be outside the scope of prevailing knowledge, fall within the scope of possible knowledge.

I could be wrong. People usually are.

Bryon

The problem with the argument that "innumerable" people, even experts, are wrong is that there only needs to be one person, expert or not,that is right to prove the thing works. There are obviously many reasons why someone might not get the expected results, including impaired hearing, lack of listening experience, faults somewhere in the system, failure to follow instructions, etc. Thus, negative results mean precious little, except to support claims by naysayers that the device under test disobeys all known laws of science, is fraudulent, or is simply a placebo.

04-28-12: Geoffkait
There are obviously many reasons why someone might not get the expected results, including impaired hearing, lack of listening experience, faults somewhere in the system, failure to follow instructions, etc. Thus, negative results mean precious little, except to support claims by naysayers that the device under test disobeys all known laws of science, is fraudulent, or is simply a placebo.

On the other hand, positive results don't mean much either, unless:

A)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner, and with sufficient understanding of the variables that might affect the results, such that there can be a reasonable degree of certainty that the result is being attributed to the correct variable.

For example, extraneous variables that could conceivably affect assessment of a fuse, especially one that is claimed by some to require 100 hours of breakin, would include ongoing aging, breakin, loss of breakin or rebreakin of system components; equipment being in a different state of warmup during the different parts of the comparison; differences in contact integrity resulting from removing and replacing the fuse, including scraping away of oxidation that may occur, as well as differences in contact pressure; changes in AC line voltage or noise conditions; changes in room temperature (temperature is a parameter that is fundamental to the physics of transistors and other semiconductor devices); and changes in RFI/EMI conditions.

B)There is sufficient understanding of the mechanisms by which the device works, if in fact it does work, to provide confidence that its effects are not just a quirk of its interaction with the particular system, that would not occur in many or most other systems.

For example, a finding that a fuse makes a difference with a Class AB or Class D amplifier, for which the AC current draw fluctuates dramatically as the volume of the music varies, IMO would say nothing about the likelihood that it would make a difference with a Class A amplifier, for which there is little fluctuation in AC current draw.

C)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination (a la the stock market, ca. 2000). As a minimum, that would mean going back and forth at least a couple of times between the devices being compared, to verify that the results are repeatable. In saying that, I am not necessarily referring to an immediate ABX-type back and forth comparison, since I recognize that not all differences will be perceivable in a short-term comparison.

04-28-12: Bryoncunningham
What is the standard by which Possible Unknown Parameters are distinguished from Impossible Unknown Parameters?

As with most things in life, IMO it comes down to judgment, hopefully judgment that is as informed as possible. Informed by a combination of technical understanding, experience, and inputs from others. While judgments will certainly differ considerably from person to person, it is all that we have to go on. In applying that judgment, we weigh what we consider to be the likelihood of significant benefit against the time, expense, and potential risks and downsides (see the link Clio provided) that are involved in pursuing it.

FWIW, my own "a priori," subjective, and certainly fallible judgment is that the possibility of a fuse making a sonic difference falls within the realm of a Possible Unknown Parameter, while its directionality does not. In saying that, I certainly do not exclude the possibility that cables (as opposed to fuses) may have directional sensitivity, the two situations being distinguished by the vastly different lengths that are involved, by the less direct relation between a fuse and the signal path, and by the fact that many cables are asymmetrical by design (with the outer shield being grounded at only one end).

Best regards,
-- Al