Synergistic Red Fuse ...

I tried an SR Black fuse in place of a relatively new fuse ( about 30 hours on the stock fuse).

The SR Black sounded a little better. So to me it's not because the stock fuse was degraded over years of use.

Still, I think they are way overpriced, especially if they can be mass produced with the graphine, beeswax or nano particles. I have little desire to buy more of them.  

What got me started on fuses was when I blew one in my amp. I replaced it with a standard fuse, and that got me thinking about them as a potential bottleneck to good sound. I then read about the SR blacks, and got one to try. The fuse the black replaced in my amp was new, and I still heard a very significant improvement.

 
rilbr
I tried an SR Black fuse in place of a relatively new fuse ( about 30 hours on the stock fuse).

The SR Black sounded a little better. So to me it's not because the stock fuse was degraded over years of use.

Still, I think they are way overpriced, especially if they can be mass produced with the graphine, beeswax or nano particles. I have little desire to buy more of them.

....................

Mass produced? Shirley, you jest. Just curious, was your relatively new stock fuse insert in the right direction? Was the SR Black inserted in the right direction?

Teo_audio wrote,

"Importantly, engineering is not science. Science has only theories. Engineering has laws. Engineering is about building, so it has rules, so you don’t experiment with devices and constructions being built for the human world.

Science is about exploration and that is wholly error prone. Since it is error prone, it cannot ever suffer a law, as laws will make it circular and closed off, with no expandable future. When we get to the real exploration in science, we find there is not anything like a fact, either.

The bleeding edge of science, has, for as long as anyone can remember in this idea of organizing research and giving it a language in commonality...ie science...this science has not not one single fact. Zero.

The only ’fact’ in existence in science...is that there are no facts. A paradox. The core philosophical argument of science, right at the core of it... is the same paradox as quantum science --the wave-particle duality. Everything is theory that is subject to change."

..........

Whoa! Hey! There are no facts? There are no laws? It’s a little difficult to swallow all those statements in light of Newton’s Laws of motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, even the simple little old equation E=mc2. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. That is not a theory. It is not subject to change. There is a giant black hole in the center of our galaxy. That is 99.99% pure fact. Furthermore, wave particle duality is a specific idea and is not applicable to everything in science. Not everything in science is a mystery, a paradox or a theory. 

From our old friend, Wikipedia,

"The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]

Laws reflect scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations. A law can usually be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the circumstances of the processes taking place.

Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment. Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may contain one or several laws.[3] Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[4] Although the nature of a scientific law is a question in philosophy and although scientific laws describe nature mathematically, scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes."

To put it more succinctly - it is what it is.