2. misc-audio
  3. 131672-481

The new Synergistic Research BLUE fuses ....

New SR BLUE fuse thread ...

I’ve replaced all 5 of the SR BLACK fuses in my system with the new SR BLUE fuses. Cold, out of the box, the BLUE fuses stomped the fully broken-in SR BLACKS in a big way. As good as the SR BLACK fuses were/are, especially in comparison with the SR RED fuses, SR has found another break-through in fuses.

1. Musicality ... The system is totally seamless at this point. Its as if there is no system in the room, only a wall to wall, front to back and floor to ceiling music presentation with true to life tonality from the various instruments.

2. Extension ... I’ve seemed to gain about an octave in low bass response. This has the effect of putting more meat on the bones of the instruments. Highs are very extended, breathing new life into my magic percussion recordings. Vibes, chimes, bells, and triangles positioned in the rear of the orchestra all have improved. I’ve experienced no roll-off of the highs what so ever with the new BLUE fuses. Just a more relaxed natural presentation.

3. Dynamics ... This is a huge improvement over the BLACK fuses. Piano and vibes fans ... this is fantastic.

I have a Japanese audiophile CD of Flamenco music ... the foot stomps on the stage, the hand clapping and the castanets are present like never before. Want to hear natural sounding castanets? Get the BLUE fuses.

4. Mid range ... Ha! Put on your favorite Ben Webster album ... and a pair of adult diapers. Play Chris Connor singing "All About Ronnie," its to die for.

Quick .... someone here HAS to buy this double album. Its a bargain at this price. Audiophile sound, excellent performance by the one and only Chris Connor. Yes, its mono ... but so what? Its so good you won’t miss the stereo effects. If you’re the lucky person who scores this album, please post your results here.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ULTRASONIC-CLEAN-The-Finest-Of-CHRIS-CONNOR-Bethlehem-Jazz-1975-NM-UNPLAYED-...

Overall impressions:

Where the RED fuses took about 20 hours to sound their best, and the BLACK fuses took upwards of 200 hours of total break-in, the BLUE fuses sounded really good right out of the box ... and that’s without doing anything about proper directional positioning. Not that the BLUE fuses don’t need breaking in, they do. The improvement continues through week three. Its a gradual break-in thing where each listening session is better than the last.

Everything I described above continues to break new ground in my system as the fuses continue breaking in. Quite honestly, I find it difficult to tear myself away from the system in order to get things done. Its truly been transformed into a magical music machine. With the expenditure of $150.00 and a 30 day return policy there’s really nothing to lose. In my system, its like upgrading to a better pre amp, amp, CD player or phono stage. Highly recommended.

Kudos to Ted Denney and the entire staff at SR. Amazing stuff, guys. :-)

Frank

PS: If you try the SR BLUE fuses, please post your results here. Seems the naysayers, the Debbie Downers and Negative Nellie’s have hijacked the original RED fuse thread. A pox on their houses and their Pioneer receivers.

Frank



128x128oregonpapa
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,796 posts
 
Just so you know, I'm an atheist. I appreciated Ivan's post because it's well written and parallels some of what I feel. I don't see it as the kind of attack it's being made out to be, rather an observation on how he sees things, which everyone here, myself included, does. 

If someone directs a rebuttal expressly at me, I'll answer in kind. But just to give voice to something that's hard to pin down shouldn't anger anyone. We're all reaching to find the words to express ourselves.
If it should hit close to home, maybe some introspection is in order. A nerve can be struck, but it doesn't mean it's expressly directed at you.

All the best,
Nonoise


geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
From wiki page on psedoskepticism:

In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term (pseodoskepticism) specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]

[your humble scribe’s insert)] Note: Marcello Truzzi (September 6, 1935 – February 2, 2003) was a professor of sociology at New College of Florida and later at Eastern Michigan University, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration,[1] and director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.]

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

Denying, when only doubt has been established
Double standards in the application of criticism
The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

He characterized true skepticism as:[5]

Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
prof
3,468 posts
 
nonoise,

He painted skeptics as selfish demanding children who bog down conversations with "demands for proof!" and himself and those like him as enlightened and charitable.

It’s a b.s. characterization. His characterization won’t map on to what I’ve written. Nor have I seen other skeptics demanding PROOF but only better evidence.And the charitable characterization he gives himself doesn’t map to his own post, or to many of the responses against skeptics in this thread either.

If he wants to engage the reasons someone else has for another view, let him do it. But just tossing out barely-veiled insults without showing they are warranted at all is poor form.   It's just dismissing someone's position with insult, without doing the work to justify his claims.
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,796 posts
 
prof,

He did say it struck a nerve when I mentioned 'pious', or at least piqued his interest. I just give him the benefit of the doubt of simply venting after reading this long thread before chiming in. 

Maybe on a different day it would have struck me the wrong way and got my hackles up but today it didn't. Somedays my thin skin can get really thick.

All the best,
Nonoise
prof
3,468 posts
 
I hear you there, nonoise. 

Peace out :-)


More to discover