Tuning Fuses?!

[MylesBAstor]

If you don't like sighted tests, there's always Sound and Vision.

Anyone ever bought a piece of audio equipment based on a review in S&V?

I'm also waiting for someone to explain a negative review of a highly touted manufacturer if sighted reviews are so flawed. Or even a group survey say of five amplifiers or cartridges. Or how your girlfriend or wife can hear the difference in another room.

 

[Speedskater]

Would you care to list some negative reviews of highly touted equipment.

 

[Speedskater]

Wait, I recall two negative reviews:
A long time ago, a very expensive pre-amp, because it had one op-amp in it.
Recently a very expensive big power amp, because it was class "D"

 

[MylesBAstor]

Would you care to list some negative reviews of highly touted equipment.

Read TAS 1-24. Or the early issues of Stereophile.

 

[DonH50]

I used network analyzers years ago, but lower frequency, barely into a gig, but dont know if they went all the way down to audio, expect they did not. Looks like the test with a vna is a no go for now. good idea for trying anyway. Actually though, he says the thing is directional, hence one could apply a perfectly symettrical sinewave and this thing should generate a dc baseline shift. Put your mind to it maybe you will come up with something. I dont have any test equipment that could detect such a minute shift in level, it must be atleast 7 decimal points or more and my best unit only 4 1/2 digits and the scope would be in the noise. anyway, thanks for the reply Don.

Place I used to work had 8-digit meters; I may see if a friend there would help out on a weekend or evening. Since it's only 60 Hz a precision RMS DMM would do fine. I am not sure what we have at my current workplace, have to look. LF precision is not normally a concern for the type of stuff I am playing with on the job, but we may have something...

However, has he actually said it is directional, other than the quote earlier? That does not sound like there is actually anything in the fuse. Since the signal alternates on every cycle it hard to see why you would want a directional fuse...

 

[GaryProtein]

Gary will you stop posting that blind testing is the gold standard. Anyone in research knows a one size fits all approach is invalid. And so it is with blind testing which ignores every biological and statistical test known to mankind. Oh and we can start with an internal control.

Blinded tests are absolutely the gold standard in real science in any circumstance where it is possible to do such a test.

They are an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by the placebo effect or observer bias.

 

[microstrip]

Blinded tests are absolutely the gold standard in real science in any circumstance where it is possible to do such a test.

They are an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by the placebo effect or observer bias.

Unhappily high-end audio does not fit in this category ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

Blinded tests are absolutely the gold standard in real science in any circumstance where it is possible to do such a test.

They are an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by the placebo effect or observer bias.

I am curious Gary. What are your research credentials?

 

[mep]

Personally, I think we need all of our senses in order to make sound decisions (no pun intended-well, maybe not). Why do you want to handicap yourself by taking one of your senses away? If people think double blind tests are so great and only those tests can be trusted, why not hire a blind person with sharp ears that you trust and let them make all of your purchasing decisions for audio gear? I have kicked my fair share of great looking audio gear to the curb because I didn't think it stood up over time to cheaper and dowdier looking gear.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Personally, I think we need all of our senses in order to make sound decisions (no pun intended-well, maybe not). Why do you want to handicap yourself by taking one of your senses away? If people think double blind tests are so great and only those tests can be trusted, why not hire a blind person with sharp ears that you trust and let them make all of your purchasing decisions for audio gear? I have kicked my fair share of great looking audio gear to the curb because I didn't think it stood up over time to cheaper and dowdier looking gear.

+1

And that person owns a store out in NJ.

 

[Groucho]

So can the right fuse improve the sound? Or is it a case of 'the best fuse is no fuse' (similar to the statement so often trotted out about cables - yet is it ever meant sincerely, or just as a pseudo-rational statement to throw objectivists off the scent? If no cable is the best cable, then design equipment to require negligibly short cables - not hard to do).

If it's the latter, then manufacturers could introduce various types of circuit breakers that have none of the characteristics that primitive fuses are claimed to have that degrades the sound. Of course, I wait for someone from China to say "Yes, but they have other characteristics that may degrade the sound further. Micro-diodes in the switch contacts, blah blah, I'm really clever, me. My mum says so.

But then, we all have those self-same circuit breakers in our consumer units and are listening through them all the time.

Beyond that, the curious audiophile wishing for an orgasmic experience could simply take a chance and bypass the fuse with an oxygen-free copper nail. If I had to bet everything I own, it would be that no audiophile would hear any improvement whatsoever.

Sadly, I think most people believe that audiophile cables and fuses are manufactured by wizards with special, secret powers and that they sprinkle fairy dust over the sound; they don't really believe the 'best X is no X' argument.

 

[MylesBAstor]

So can the right fuse improve the sound? Or is it a case of 'the best fuse is no fuse' (similar to the statement so often trotted out about cables - yet is it ever meant sincerely, or just as a pseudo-rational statement to throw objectivists off the scent? If no cable is the best cable, then design equipment to require negligibly short cables - not hard to do).

If it's the latter, then manufacturers could introduce various types of circuit breakers that have none of the characteristics that primitive fuses are claimed to have that degrades the sound. Of course, I wait for someone from China to say "Yes, but they have other characteristics that may degrade the sound further. Micro-diodes in the switch contacts, blah blah, I'm really clever, me. My mum says so.

But then, we all have those self-same circuit breakers in our consumer units and are listening through them all the time.

Beyond that, the curious audiophile wishing for an orgasmic experience could simply take a chance and bypass the fuse with an oxygen-free copper nail. If I had to bet everything I own, it would be that no audiophile would hear any improvement whatsoever.

Sadly, I think most people believe that audiophile cables and fuses are manufactured by wizards with special, secret powers and that they sprinkle fairy dust over the sound; they don't really believe the 'best X is no X' argument.

And a nail through the head would end all debate.

Oh and actually your super intellect should have told you that the microdiode effect was originally discovered and known by the military 20 or so years ago (at least).

 

[mep]

Well Groucho, I think that audio engineers would tell you that fuses are a necessary evil in circuits in order to prevent massive failures of the gear or fires that would burn your house down. Would a given piece of gear sound better with no fuse? I think it probably would. Should you bypass fuses and hope that everything will be OK? I don't think so, but then I'm not much for gambling.

 

[FrantzM]

Personally, I think we need all of our senses in order to make sound decisions (no pun intended-well, maybe not). Why do you want to handicap yourself by taking one of your senses away? If people think double blind tests are so great and only those tests can be trusted, why not hire a blind person with sharp ears that you trust and let them make all of your purchasing decisions for audio gear? I have kicked my fair share of great looking audio gear to the curb because I didn't think it stood up over time to cheaper and dowdier looking gear.

I am not sure this is a valid argument. One could counter that it is not necessary to hear to see well. It is the not the "seeing" of the equipment but the knowing. Although seeing in itself brings a layer of bias. Removing the biases is the best method to ascertain our perception knowing how much we can be induced by our biases to claim perception of non-occurring stimuli or events . No one says that Blind tests are practical or even possible under many circumstances, it remains however that removing the biases is the best way to ascertain the validity of some tests or claims.

Slightly OT a personal anecdote: I started not believing my senses after a an episode at CES. There was a magician in a Booth and he managed in front of two friends to remove my watch a clasped braceletlike this one,the watch is the same too.


without my friends or I or anyone in the assistance noticing it . he was performing another trick and shook my hand when I got the answer right .. of so I thought beaming some... I then was going inside the booth. he called me back insisting strongly I claim my prize... only to see to everyone surprize that the "prize' was my watch, a substantial Breitling. To this day I can't understand how he performed this trick
Oh yes our senses can fool us, especially when they are working together.

Back to the fuses whose presence makes such a great differences..

... Then if one finds that a fuse in the AC lines brings happiness by all means purchase it. But if you claim it makes an improvement be prepared to be questioned about your claims. If when knowledge is removed and you fail to perceive these improvements. What is the more likely conclusion?

 

[GaryProtein]

I am curious Gary. What are your research credentials?

I have done microbiological/immunology and clinical research.

Nevertheless, blind studies are still the gold scientific standard.

 

[GaryProtein]

. . . . . . Then if one finds that a fuse in the AC lines brings happiness by all means purchase it. But if you claim it makes an improvement be prepared to be questioned about your claims. . . .

Which is exactly why I said earlier that if the tweak makes a person happy, that's fine, BUT a professional reviewer whose job it is to create or sway opinions or entice a person to make a purchase has to answer to a higher authority. The Blind Test.

Unhappily high-end audio does not fit in this category ...

It does if you're honest, unbiased and impartial to what the results might show. It only requires one person to do the switching while another person(s) listens.

 

[microstrip]

It does if you're honest, unbiased and impartial to what the results might show. It only requires one person to do the switching while another person(s) listens.

The world is full of nice suggestions to be carried by others, but little materialization. As I have not yet read in WBF a blind review detailing the execution carried by you I stick my point - the typical switching that can be achieved in practice in high-end reviews will make a review invalid. Please do not tell us that a method that is described by "one person to do the switching while another person(s) listens" becomes immediately scientific. Just because you avoid one drawback of sighted review does not make your suggested method better than current practice.

 

[Steve Williams]

The world is full of nice suggestions to be carried by others, but little materialization. As I have not yet read in WBF a blind review detailing the execution carried by you I stick my point - the typical switching that can be achieved in practice in high-end reviews will make a review invalid. Please do not tell us that a method that is described by "one person to do the switching while another person(s) listens" becomes immediately scientific. Just because you avoid one drawback of sighted review does not make your suggested method better than current practice.

Francisco

Would you agree however that there just could be more science when one person switches fuses and/or direction and the other person listens blindly than when one person does it sighted

 

[FrantzM]

The world is full of nice suggestions to be carried by others, but little materialization. As I have not yet read in WBF a blind review detailing the execution carried by you I stick my point - the typical switching that can be achieved in practice in high-end reviews will make a review invalid. Please do not tell us that a method that is described by "one person to do the switching while another person(s) listens" becomes immediately scientific. Just because you avoid one drawback of sighted review does not make your suggested method better than current practice.

Well that is what I call resistance. ok. If you want to believe that knowing the fuse is in is more accurate than not knowing ... I am not sure there is any more that could be said.

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

TO this post

Blinded tests are absolutely the gold standard in real science in any circumstance where it is possible to do such a test.

They are an important part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by the placebo effect or observer bias.

You replied

Unhappily high-end audio does not fit in this category ...

In another thread you wrote THIS I am quoting it here

It is also true. Even without reference people statistically converge towards good sound.

How do you think those statistics toward "good sound" were obtained? with serious blind tests or through sighted tests? If you are referring to The Harman researches or those of F. Toole, I am sure you know they were obtained in blind situations. Do you fail to see the contradiction? Since High End Audio is the epitome of "Good Sound' or at least should be ...