fuse damage

I was using HiFi Tuning fuses when only game in town YEARS ago.  One time I ran into a bad batch of KT88's in my high powered tube amp, 8 KT88/6550 per mono, that lasted ~300 hours.   The stock and HiFi Tuning fuses exhibited the same behavior when a tube blows.   Fuse blows and sometimes take out bias resistors.   

I can understand companies warranty position on after market fuses, power cables ...  It's wide range of potential experimental products so they have to protect themselves.    HiFi Tuning, Synergistic ... have been around for a LONG time so would be out of business if their product is flawed.  Instead of a shrinking after fuse market, it's growing with new players.

Every time a fuse damage experience is requested, we get the same ONE 2nd hand story.   Google and other search engines are broken can't locate any 1st hand negative experiences ... should never host classified material in a San Jose bathroom.   IMO, it's a possible amp design flaw and designer blaming the fuses which would not surprise me.  It's your $$ so decide for yourself!

It doesn’t take much effort to find and read what Modjeski has to say about the Hi-Fi Tuning Fuses he examined, and on the design and construction of fuses in general. And after having done so, one is free to dismiss or disregard Rogers findings and opinions. There is no design flaw in the Music Reference RM-9 MK.II amplifier that would result in it being damaged by insertion of the fuses; a Google search will prove that to any skeptics. Again, what harm can come from reading what a very knowledgeable and highly-regarded electronic circuit designer has to say on the subject? I realize Modjeski is not a 'high-end darling" designer (he does not "believe" in audiophile speaker wire), but ya'll do at least acknowledge he is an expert in his field, right? Just one more source from which to obtain information to consider, right? Unless one simply doesn’t want to hear anything that contradicts one's own opinion, or even the widely-held common wisdom, on the subject of "audiophile" fuses!

The following are Roger Modjeski quotes from that bastion of audiophile wisdom, Audio Circle.  

Roger Modjeski wrote,

"Perhaps you are recalling my post about burn-in where I questioned: If burn in is real, how come it wasn't discovered in the 1950s? I can only suggest that people weren't searching so hard to make something out of nothing. I recall Enid Lumely and her little tweaks, one of which was to put the cable against the wall and then put pine boards angled at 45 degrees to cover them. The good thing about people like that is they eventually go away. However if they start to make money from it, that takes longer."

"I am constantly amazed at the willingness of some to try a modification (tweak) that cannot possibly work. That is the whole point of this post. A fuse cannot be microphonic no more than pigs can fly."

"It is a thankless effort (perhaps a fools errand) to explain the science of things to un-scientific people. Yet these people should realize that the best products come from good science. I would not be able to design good sounding equipment using the pseudo science that is bandied about in the industry. Has anyone noticed that the makers of these modifications (previously called tweaks) for the most part make no real products. They do not know how to make an amplifier and many of them cannot even explain how one works yet they feel they can make it better with their "discovery"."

Having taught the scientific method at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I don't know how "good" science might be defined. Using invalid measures or inappropriate analyses might be part of this. Usually, peer review is used to weed out poor methodologies.

But engineering is the use of science findings to make fullest use of those findings. But science often ignores many issues, such as magnetic wave generated by signals in those cables, or how vibrations interact with them to distort the true signals. I left EE because its myopic view. Physics was more open to discovery.

Geoff (and anyone else who feels Modjeski’s views on the topics Geoff quoted renders his opinion of the Hi-Fi Tuning Fuses questionable, if not downright invalid), allow me to suggest that even if Roger is "wrong" about any other topic (as I feel he is about acoustic room treatment, specifically bass traps), that does not necessarily mean he is wrong about the fuses. It’s easy enough to read what he has said about them, consider what he has said, and make of it what you will. I realize his opinion of some of the "sacred" audiophile beliefs calls into question amongst audiophiles his credibility---if he doesn’t hear evidence of burn in, for instance, how good can his designs sound? (very good; read Michael Fremer's review of the Music Reference RM-200). It reminds me of the reaction owners of the Audio Research SP-3 had to Frank Van Alstine---himself dismissive of "tweaks"---when he dared to find fault in that pre-amp and offer a mod to correct what he claimed were it’s design weaknesses. Bill Johnson was held in far higher esteem by 70’s audiophiles than was Frank. Yet Frank was proven to be correct, and his mod did indeed improve not only the bench test results of the SP-3 (it’s linearity, RIAA equalization accuracy, overload margins at low frequencies), but it’s sound as well. That’s right---a traditional conservative, non-audiophile approved electronic engineer improved on a design by the at-the-time undisputed king of audiophile designers. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day ;-) !