Fuses that matter.

There are people that believe you need science, and Electrical Engineers to make things happen in audio.

Then you have people that sell tweaks that just don't have any scientific backing.

It appears that some of these people want you to believe in science fiction. Some of them would be happy if you didn't do any scientific investigating about their products. When someone finds out there is no backing to these products, it seems make these people nervous.

Then in their defense for people not hearing any improvement using these non-scientific products, they'll say the person has bad hearing, poor gear, or they simply aren't seasoned audiophiles, and don't know how to listen for it. Not much of a defense, since the result of these products cannot be heard by a lot of us, but also the scientific equipment that was used in the making of our gear.

If we didn't have designers that apply these time tested, and proven facts used in building our electronic gear, we wouldn't have any of it. What would we have for a stereo system? A wax cylinder with two (stereo) large horns for picking up the sound, recording it to the wax cylinder, and the same for play back?

What have we been listening to since we started this hobby? Poor sounding gear, due to not having these new tweaks?

What do we do with all of our recoded music that was made without these tweaks? Throw it all in the trash? Start all over? I have some fantastic sounding recordings, but then again, I'm tone deaf, or don't know how to recognize that these are supposed to sound bad according to the tweak people. Don't forget, they didn't use designer fuses in their making. Also, some other non-proven tweaks.

It was mentioned by someone earlier in the thread (I believe) that there must be a way of proving these tweaks. There is one method that wouldn't hurt the consumer, and seller, if they really work. Let the designers prove that they can hear their own products improvements. This could be done in their own system, and a neutral third party can change swap these tweaks in and out of their system. As much of a difference that could be heard according to them, should give over a ninety, to a hundred percent chance of identifying their own product. If they did something like this, it should give them a lot more credibility. Why don't any of them do this? It could be done in their own system, that they are totally familiar with. This sounds fair to me.

The builders of amplifiers, and other products, have their equipment get scrutinized in all kinds of measured performance, and listening tests. If their amps don't give the promised power, low distortion, sound, etc., the designer would have one nasty headache, with a lot of explaining to do. Damage control. Their products do have to perform as promised. These tests are done all the time.

We've had all kind of these tweaks come and go. Some are still around, but not as popular. A lot of people seem to have bought them, state how great of an improvement they gave, and then forget about them, or give up on a lot of them. Maybe designer fuses will be next of that list...

Tbg,

I'm not saying intuition is science.

Look up the meaning. Two different things!

Maybe someone with nothing better to do will do a scientific study on the effect of fuses on sound in audio systems.

Meanwhile we will have to solely rely on our individual intuition and draw our own conclusions as best we see fit.

My conclusion is I will not lose any sleep over fuses. That's pretty much it.

Mapman, you said,
"Yes I do have a technical background. A big part of my occupation is assessing technology and managing technical risks."

I don't really consider technology assessment or risk management to be technical fields, not that there's anything wrong with them. Even if your education and background were based on the hard sciences, you would still have a problem using technical intuition to determine the operational feasibility or efficacy of the controversial tweaks we've been talking about, like fuse directionality. Now, you might conclude it doesn't make sense, but that's to be expected, that's why it's controversial.

In the cases of things like Crystals, green pens, red pens, Mpingo discs, clocks that don't plug into the wall, PWB cream, low frequency generators, tiny bowl resonators, quantum dots, liquid cables, most audiophiles simply aren't prepared, education or background wise, to come up with an informed decision one way or the other. Technical intuition of the guy under the bridge is not going to be of much help when it comes to assessing many controversial tweaks. Someone with an EE or BS is not going to be much better off, since many of the concepts and technology involved with controversial tweaks cannot be found in textbooks.

05-12-12: Almarg
The most notable differences occur for non-harmonic frequency components that are at levels of 60 or 65 db or so below the amplitude of the 60 Hz component. Those differences were generally in the direction of favoring the expensive fuses, but in some cases favored the stock fuses. But consider that 60 db corresponds to 0.1% in terms of voltage, and 0.0001% in terms of power. And along the lines of Roger's comment, those percentages will be GREATLY reduced by rectification, filtering, and in the case of many components voltage regulation, that occurs in the circuitry between the output side of the fuse and the signal path.

Thanks, Al. That's more or less what I thought when I looked at it. I suppose that means that the differences heard among fuses are either...

1. Misperception.
2. Misattribution.
3. Attributable to other variables.

I'm interested in knowing which of these it is, though evidently it's not an easy question to answer. Within a week I'll have fuses from Hifi Tuning, Isoclean, and Furutech, in addition to the stock fuses. I will do my best to A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D them. It's certainly not science, but it's something.

Bryon

Hi Bryon,

Just to clarify, I think that in number 3 you are referring to other fuse-related variables, perhaps unexplainable ones.

Also, where I referred to rectification, filtering, and in some cases voltage regulation as reducing the magnitude of the noise components shown in the reference you provided, I should also have mentioned power supply rejection ratio. Which is to say that extraneous frequency components that may be present on the DC voltages which power the circuit stages that are directly in the signal path will not directly sum together or intermodulate with the signal. In a good design only a tiny fraction of those extraneous components will affect the signal. That is particularly the case if their frequencies are very low and therefore can't couple through stray capacitances or radiate. The noise frequencies shown in the reference you provided are of course very low.

I will do my best to A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D them. It's certainly not science, but it's something.

I have no doubt that your comparisons will be more thorough and disciplined than many others, and therefore more meaningful.

Best,
-- Al