Fuses that matter.

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

There are some products I have lower regard for than the MD products I have read about but it is truly hard to come up with many. Cigarettes are the ones that come to mind. Although I am of the opinion that the MD products are a sham, at least they are not hazardous to your health most likely. Then again who knows since as best I can tell nobody in this world is intelligent enough to understand how they work seemingly.

"There are some products I have lower regard for than the MD products I have read about but it is truly hard to come up with many. Cigarettes are the ones that come to mind. Although I am of the opinion that the MD products are a sham, at least they are not hazardous to your health most likely. Then again who knows since as best I can tell nobody in this world is intelligent enough to understand how they work seemingly."

Mapman, thanks for endorsement. Your opinion means a lot to me.

Maybe you can do a risk assessment for me, whadda say?

You know what everyone in the world thinks? Interesting.

Tootles

Well, maybe I'm wrong. After all, its merely intuition. I do always try to keep an open mind though.