Why don't amplifier Companies use high end fuses?

The "sound" of a fuse (piece of wire) is a tricky subject indeed! But first we must define (and agree) what exactly is "sound". I propose that "sound" is our brains' interpretation of pressure waves in our oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere impinging upon our ears (acoustic sensors). From this basic proposition we can then make further inquiries. The old debate going back 50+ years was the "sound" of tubes versus transistors. I propose that neither has a "sound". For either to work they must be used in a circuit (amplifier). And then connected to a wave-pressure generator (speaker). Only this coupling (amp/speaker) produces "sound" (pressure waves). Neither the "circuit/amp" nor the "wave pressure generator/speaker has an INTRINSIC quality called "sound". Only by considering the amp/speaker as a SYSTEM can  we make progress in our understanding of the phenomenon called " sound"! END OF PART 1: Next, some of my subjective observations on the controversial subject of fuse (wire) "sound".

Here is an interesting aside: John Bedini (one of the premier circuit designers) came to believe in the directionality of resistors. He claimed to have invented a method for measuring this property and using it to select resistors for his amplifier circuits! If true, this would qualify as a major discovery in Physics!

Well, as much as I hate to toot my own horn 🎺 I have been saying all along that because all (rpt all) wire is directional, not only are fuses directional but also resistors, capacitors, transformers, and obviously cables and power cords. Also, internal electronics wiring, internal speaker wiring, crossovers including wiring and you guessed it inductors and capacitors. Gee, what about house wiring? Mr. Bedini might have stumbled onto something. 😳 A major discovery in physics, indeed!

crosst_emoji

@geoffkait
There you go again spouting meaningless platitudes. Nothing in this hobby defies the laws of physics. Plenty of people are skeptical of things that don’t actually exist. I like those people. I get worried when I’m around people hearing things that can’t possibly exist.

Calm down, it’s only an expression. But judging from your reaction 😡, an expression that actually has some meaning, you know, inasmuch as naysayers like yourself keep repeating the same mantra: this directionality phenomenon can’t possibly be real, it’s not possible and it disobeys all known laws of physics and electronics. You like people like yourself. 😡 😡 😡 12 Angry Men. 😀

A modest proposal. I propose that hearing and perception are the same thing. There is no real reason to say they are something different. Hearing is a sensory perception just like vision. It's how we perceive realityThis is not to say there cannot be wide variations among even experienced audiophiles regarding hearing ability, experience in listening and so forth. But I think it's wrong to say perception of sound is something other than what we hear as if it's something undefinable or mysterious. Again this is not to say hearing is not complex or even sometimes mysterious. Heaven forbid! And I'm not discounting psychological effects from the whole listening equation, either, things like placebo effects, expectation bias, etc. Nor can we discount listeners' testimony regarding what they hear. It's unfortunate that naysayers frame positive results as some some of delusion. 

Speaking of reality I also suggest that physics, strictly speaking, is not reality in the sense that physics as a science represents what we know, what we have discovered about physical reality. But physics as a science is incomplete, and continually growing. It would be rather presumptuous to assume something mysterious or puzzling MUST be inexplainable by physics. It's premuptuous to assume directionality of wire, disobeys some physical law or even theory. It may very well disagree with what many people assume is understood by science or physics.

From intro to Zen and the art of Debunkery:

Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.


As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.