PADIS vs Furutech fuses


I now have about 260 hours on my PADIS fuse and ready to some listening. The PADIS fuse appears to look exactly like the Furutech fuse. It has the same blue casing with the PF logo on one side. Actually, the only visible difference between the PADIS and Furutech is that the Furutech has “FURUTECH” printed on the opposite side. However, there are actually differences:

My very initial thoughts on the PADIS fuse (in the first few hours) was that the PADIS seemed somewhat dryer sounding than the Furutech. The PADIS did not have the typical “cold / wet /chimey” tones that fresh rhodium plated Furutech components generally have (I’ve tested Furutech rhodium fuses, power cord connectors, interconnect – they all initially contribute this cold/chime character).

I have often stated that Furutech rhodium is painful to burn in. I have burned in many Furutech fuses and it goes through several painful areas. There are days in Furutech rhodium burn-in where I would sit down to listen and the sound would just be so bright / harsh / hard-edged that I said “I can’t listen to this”. At that point, I would just walk away and let it continue to burn in. With the PADIS fuses, it never got that painful. I could hear the burn-in process changes, but it was always listenable. At the 180-200 hour mark, the PADIS did get very bright/hard-edged, but it was still somewhat listenable (I did not have to walk away). At 220 hours it was fully resolved.

Now, for the comparison. I will say that the PADIS is an excellent fuse. For the money, you really cannot beat it, unless you need a warm signature (in which case you need an Isoclean fuse). Both the PADIS and Furutech share the same essential sonic signature. However, there is definitely a difference. The PADIS sounds very good – do not get me wrong, it is an excellent fuse. However, the Furutech really did have an improvement. The tones on the Furutech were just a bit more pure and true sounding. The Furutech had a more “solid” sound to the audio. The Furutech had a bit more punch and meatiness to the bass / midbass. The PADIS, on the other hand, was a bit more loose in the highs, causing the high frequencies to be a bit more messy and rattling. This does cause the PADIS to sound a bit more dry. The PADIS also did not have quite the depth of soundstage when compared to the Furutech.

Now some people might sit down with me and say “I can’t hear a difference” or “your just splitting hairs”. I might be. The difference in sound is VERY subtle, but to me it makes a significant improvement. The differences could also be revealed when listening over a longer period (like 20-30 minutes). The music with the Furutech is just more engaging.

If you have very low resolution or warm equipment, it is possible that you would not hear the difference at all. However, on high resolution stuff, the Furutech could make that equipment “shine” just a little bit better. The PADIS is an excellent buy. For half the cost, you get a whole heck of a lot of performance (almost a no-brainer if you’re still running a stock fuse!). For those who want to bleed out the most amount of performance and resolution – the Furutech is worth the cost.

There are a few possible reasons I can think of that would cause the PADIS/Furutech difference:

- Furutech fuse state a special damping filler inside to reduce electrical resonance. I cannot find an reference to a damping filler for the PADIS fuses.  This could be why the PADIS sounds a bit more loose/dry/harsh in the highs

- Furutech does a Cryogenic treatment process. I cannot find any reference that the PADIS fuses get the same treatement.

- Rhodium plating. It is possible that the Furutech fuses are manufactured with a much thicker rhodium plating. I know Furutech likes a thick rhodium plating on their A/C connectors. The PADIS could have put a thin plating on their generic “PADIS” fuses. This could help explain why my burn-in process was not as painful.

Anyways, those are my findings. Maybe next year I’ll do a BLUE vs. Furutech analysis.

auxinput
I never said that the differences in resistance account for the differences in sound. What we have here, folks, is an excellent example of a Strawman argument. Even HiFI Tuning states that the small differences in resistance don’t account for the sonic differences, as I just quoted from their data sheets. The measured differences are, however, indicative of the directionality of fuses. All fuses. You know, because of the correlation of the differences to direction. Hel-loo!


Post removed 
These kinds of values would be overwhelmed by the ambient air temperature around a small signal transistor deviating by 2°C.

Or change in wind direction during measurements, a bit like voodoo.

Cheers George
Costco wrote,

@geoffkait And what you fail to do is draw any plausible connection between what we know and the observed phenomenon.

>>>>I have drawn rain the connection to what we know and what we hear many times. You have failed to read it or have dismissed it or whatever.

People claim they hear things. Fine. WHY??? The attributes people describe are roughly in par with the characteristics of distortion. Cool. We can measure that. Why hasn’t anybody measured that?

>>>>>>How owe should I know?

Can it be measured? I suspect not.

>>>>>>Why assume anything? You’re just be argumentative.

Now if people want to buy fuses because they manipulate your brain into liking what you’re hearing, that’s kinda crazy to me, but I otherwise don’t care.

>>>>>Uh, I’m pretty sure it’s because The aftermarket fuses improve the sound. Id say you’ve managed to psych yourself out. Otherwise you don't care? Is that why you've wound yourself up into a froth?

. I’ve got a bunch of lights and lasers I use while listening because being visually distracted from the space enhances the listening experience. I guess you could say shining lights and lasers on my gear makes it sound better. The truth is that it’s all in my head though. That seems the most rational explanation for this question about fuses.

>>>>>As I said, it appears you’ve psyched yourself out. Good luck with all that.
How in the hell did mankind ever progress before the advent of the multimeter?  Absolute chaos must have reigned supreme in the 1920s until Zavier came to the rescue with his invention.
 
Before that, all it took was for someone to demonstrate that it works. All anyone had to do was look at it, or listen to it, or taste or feel it to make sure. Once that was established, rule of thumb came into play along with posits, conventional wisdom, more and folkway, until it could be quantified by math, science, theory, or that damn multimeter.

There's a whole cottage industry of trained and trusted ears in Japan where all they do is build by ears. Everything from choice of wire and down to it's direction is tried until it sounds right. But they must be wrong, right? Their systems are the envy of anyone who's heard them. 

It's just another canard to insist that everything can and must be measured or it simply can't be. I'm not talking about accepting things on blind faith, but by my own ears, and thousands of other ears which were and still are, the foundation of measurement and still the final arbiter. 

If all one does is follow measurements, then why double check and do the final tuning by ear? The naysayers should be perfectly content with their color by numbers build techniques. Stay within the lines and all will be fine. No need to venture out and try something new lest what you try violates your written in stone bible of electrical standards because, blind faith.

I prefer to question authority and conventional wisdom because it's been proven to be so wrong in so many instances.  Not having UL or Guiness around, I trust my own ears and soldier on. For the life of me, I can't fathom why anyone refuses to simply try it for themselves and insists that they hold all the knowledge and answers because it's written down somewhere by someone who, themselves, haven't tried it. 

 Baffling, to say the least.

All the best,
Nonoise