almarg wrote,
1. Many of the purported explanations of the benefits that have been reported to be provided by expensive fuses amount to descriptions of their physical characteristics, and/or descriptions of how they were manufactured, but do not explain how those characteristics would affect the power supply circuitry and/or audio circuitry that is downstream of the fuse within the component, at least to an audibly significant degree and in a way that would be consistently beneficial.
>>>That theory appears to be nothing more than a red herring, or some other logical fallacy, since it’s not (rpt not) necessary to explain what you’re referring to. It’s actually not necessary to explain anything. But what has been offered in way of “explanation” is that “expensive” aftermarket fuses incorporate a number of innovations that PROMOTE better sound quality. These innovations have been described a great many times on these threads. (Wolfie loses all credibility as a legitimate skeptic by his oft repeated claims that nobody ever gives any explanation at all. Give me a break! Which makes your promoting of Wolfie seem all the more bizarre.
Even NASA incorporates some of these fuse innovations in their fuses for space operations, as I described earlier. These innovations include but are not necessarily limited to RF shielding, vibration control, conductivity enhancement through pure wire and end caps. Also, as I’ve oft stated, It’s not up to the users group to EXPLAIN how fuses work. What we have provided in terms of data overwhelming user testimony is evidence, a preponderance of evidence, actually.
Addendum: Hats 🤠 off to you for backing off the “atmosphere fuse holder theory” which is obviously flawed. 😛
1. Many of the purported explanations of the benefits that have been reported to be provided by expensive fuses amount to descriptions of their physical characteristics, and/or descriptions of how they were manufactured, but do not explain how those characteristics would affect the power supply circuitry and/or audio circuitry that is downstream of the fuse within the component, at least to an audibly significant degree and in a way that would be consistently beneficial.
>>>That theory appears to be nothing more than a red herring, or some other logical fallacy, since it’s not (rpt not) necessary to explain what you’re referring to. It’s actually not necessary to explain anything. But what has been offered in way of “explanation” is that “expensive” aftermarket fuses incorporate a number of innovations that PROMOTE better sound quality. These innovations have been described a great many times on these threads. (Wolfie loses all credibility as a legitimate skeptic by his oft repeated claims that nobody ever gives any explanation at all. Give me a break! Which makes your promoting of Wolfie seem all the more bizarre.
Even NASA incorporates some of these fuse innovations in their fuses for space operations, as I described earlier. These innovations include but are not necessarily limited to RF shielding, vibration control, conductivity enhancement through pure wire and end caps. Also, as I’ve oft stated, It’s not up to the users group to EXPLAIN how fuses work. What we have provided in terms of data overwhelming user testimony is evidence, a preponderance of evidence, actually.
Addendum: Hats 🤠 off to you for backing off the “atmosphere fuse holder theory” which is obviously flawed. 😛
