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
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,947 posts
 
wolf_garcia
... Depending on one’s desperation to improve their system perhaps needlessly, and the ability to imagine what one wants to hear, you can always hope for that self satisfied nirvana provided by the feeling that YOU know what’s what because you’re special, and it’s important to you that others know that.
And how are you any different from this person you describe ?
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
@cleeds 
+1

Exactly!

ALL of this is everybodies personal perspective which puts both "sides" on the same footing in all honesty.
What I do not understand is why ANYBODY should feel that it is just THEIR side/viewpoint/opinion that is right and most important!
prof
3,473 posts
 
tommylion,

Who is making "absolute" statements? Certainly not me, and I’m unaware of any other skeptic here who has done so. This is the usual straw man.

If I am doing a scientific study, there is a “burden of proof”. If I am sharing my experience with others who may be interested, there is no such thing.


Of course, sharing experiences make sense. I do it all the time like anyone else.

The problem comes when people "sharing experiences" insist on the veracity of their experiences against any skepticism. The "you can’t tell me I didn’t hear what I heard" reply which is so common. It’s one thing to say "I tried X and heard Y." That’s a report of a subjective experience. Fine. But anyone using critical thinking understand that this is not necessarily the most reliable method for determining whether there are "real" audible changes produced by the product, vs imagined differences.

The problem is that those of the "just try it for yourself" school promote this as the right way to determine sonic differences and THAT becomes a claim that is rightly disputed. It just ignores too much of what we know about the effects of human bias and malleability of our perception.

And this is the point that your comments aren’t quite getting right.

In science, someone does an experiment (tries something), reports the result, and then others try to replicate (confirm) their result. Reaching a conclusion about someone else’s experiment, without bothering to try and replicate the results, seems pretty unscientific to me.


But in science you recognize when an experiment has been done in a sloppy, unreliable manner! You don’t have to perform a specific experiment yourself to recognize it’s a poorly designed experiment.  If it's a poorly designed experiment the results aren't going to be any more reliable if I perform it for myself, vs anyone else!

If you see an "experiment" for a new medical treatment that is performed completely without control of variables, you can’t say "Well the treatment doesn’t work" but you CAN say "The method you used to evaluate the treatment is unreliable, so your conclusion is unreliable."

And THAT is generally what skeptics are saying about many audiophile tweaks. Not that they ABSOLUTELY don’t work so much as the type of evidence used to support the claims are unreliable, which warrants our skepticism. (And that is combined with the fact many tweaks are based on empirical claims that are unlikely to be true GIVEN what we know about the relevant physics/engineering issues/human perceptual issues involved).




tommylion
874 posts
 
prof,

I'd have to reread all your posts, you may not have made any absolute statements. Others certainly have.

You have clearly expressed your skepticism about the blue fuse. Do you have any inclination at all to try it for yourself? If not, may I ask what motivates you to continue posting on this thread?
prof
3,473 posts
 

tommylion,

I don't have an inclination to try the fuses.  Which, again, is not to say they don't work or wouldn't produce an audible change in my system.

My motivation for posting in the thread is, well, just having an interest in high end audio and having opinions of my own :-)  And those opinions, like many other audiophiles,  are relevant to a wide range of subjects in high end audio. 

My interest was piqued just by the heading of this thread.  I then read what seemed to be an epitome of the type of ravings that make many critics (rightly so I believe) roll their eyes at audiophiles.  Huge, over the top claims for the sonic difference in...fuses...which are to say the least highly dubious.

For instance "I’ve seemed to gain about an octave in low bass response."

Is there a technical reason why anyone should expect another octive of bass response from an audiophile fuse?  Not that I'm aware of.  But if there IS, it should obviously come from some measurable parameter that would identify such behavior.  (And of course an octave of bass extension would be easily measurable in in-room response0.  But I don't see any such evidence being presented.   So what we have, very typical in the area of tweaks, claims for Big Obvious sonic alterations in the sound, with little to no evidence in support of the claim beyond someone's subjective feeling that's what he heard.  And when this is pointed out, we tend to get versions of "you can't measure what I'm hearing." 

And this is precisely the type of "evidence" used for every crackpot claim out there, from energy healing therapies, to astrology, psychics and every new age nostrum.

Does it mean fuses don't or can't alter the sound?  Again: no.  But the NATURE of the claims and the type of "evidence" audiophiles like Frank rely on are, I think, rightly objects of skepticism.

So in my case, I count myself as an audiophile.  I love high end audio equipment, have owned a lot of it over the years, and obsess about little changes like every other audiophile.  But I'm also concerned with the nature of knowledge, rationality, empiricism etc (my philosophy-luvin' side) and the claims made in high end audio intersect with these concerns all the time. 




More to discover