Fuses and sound quality ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loudspeaker companies most certainly don't publish their research which can impact their competitiveness in the market.
Un-disseminated research is not evidence. Speculation about the existence of un-disseminated research is even less evidence.

However, there is plenty of published research in psychology and psychoacoustics -- and demonstrations -- which show that sound perception can change in the absence of any change in sound.
 
Gee, I haven't seen a whit of anything in your posts but unsubstantiated speculation. To some, your sweeping, fact-free declarations might mean something.

And the usual inclusion of your favorite take on anything outside your experience: psychoacoustics. :)
Instead of being aggressively defensive, providing compelling evidence of a physical and/or electronic effect of changing one fuse for another -- or evidence that psychoacoustic effects do not play a role in sound perception -- would be much more convincing.
 
Instead of being aggressively defensive, providing compelling evidence of a physical and/or electronic effect of changing one fuse for another -- or evidence that psychoacoustic effects do not play a role in sound perception -- would be much more convincing.
Instead of empty, knee-jerk speculative attacks on what lies decidedly outside your experience, perhaps you might provide even a semblance of illumination as to what this means:

"On the other hand, we have nearly 200 years of electronics and physics that have not yet found any effects beyond those already known and well documented."

Wasn't aware that listening tests on high resolution audio systems was performed in 1818. Too funny, Dave!
 
I missed any reference to whether the OP's question or the reviews he was looking at were about fuses in the signal path vs. the power supply. One I might consider, the other, no.

Now where did I leave that "Member Ignore Feature Works Pretty Well!" thread?
 
Instead of empty, knee-jerk speculative attacks on what lies decidedly outside your experience, perhaps you might provide even a semblance of illumination as to what this means:

"On the other hand, we have nearly 200 years of electronics and physics that have not yet found any effects beyond those already known and well documented."

Wasn't aware that listening tests on high resolution audio systems was performed in 1818. Too funny, Dave!
The fundamental properties of electronics and physics upon which audio is based have been developed and well understood over roughly the last 200 years. In that time, we have found no special property of electronics or acoustics that would explain why exchanging one fuse for another would make a difference in the behaviour of any electronic device, including audio systems. (At least at audio frequencies -- at microwave frequencies there may be issues caused by the fuse casing, for example. At radio frequencies, there may be inductance effects if the fuse uses a coiled wire around a ceramic form, as some do.)

Instead, it has been determined and demonstrated repeatedly that the fundamental electrical properties of a circuit are inductance, capacitance, and resistance. The only notable electrical properties of a typical fuse are resistance and negligible inductance. Changing one fuse for another might very, very slightly change the resistance, nominally the same as changing any other short wire in the system. How does that cause a transformation in sound?

I chose 200 years as a nice round number, roughly in line -- give or take a few decades -- with the earliest days of modern electrical and electronic research and development.
 
Having enjoyed audio since first soldering tube circuits and progressing from there, the change and knowledge gained by industry has been a mind blowing ride. It seems that almost ANY change in components, lead dress, PCB construction, cables, hell - the leadwire alloy used on resistors, and caps etc. has the potential to make a difference that may be heard by some, yet remains unmeasurable with present technology. Different folks may be sensitive to different things. Fuses are generally considered detrimental to speaker performance, and that makes sense. Likewise fuses may make an audible difference to some listeners, in some amps. The prices of high-end accouterments, however, is crazy. Ten grand for a short interconnect, speaker cable, power cords, and hundreds for fuses, footers, dampers, receptacles and cover plates has me losing respect for those purveyors of excess.
 
The fundamental properties of electronics and physics upon which audio is based have been developed and well understood over roughly the last 200 years.
Which has zero applicability to the audible results of an inline signal fuse found in speakers.

What part of that don't you get?
 
Oh this one is going down, fast, with folks unwilling to accept any new ideas but their own. Bye to this one.
 
Are you suggesting that changing an inline signal fuse found in speakers has an acoustic effect due to something other than physics or electronics?
Parroting what you think to be science is all you. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, you haven't demonstrated anything to support your claims. Just predictable logical fallacies.

Have a great day, Dave. Perhaps you'll find other things to scratch your chin, look at the ceiling and speculate about. :)
 
Oh this one is going down, fast, with folks unwilling to accept any new ideas but their own. Bye to this one.
True.

Though I would happily consider explanations for how changing a fuse might affect sound, if any were offered. Instead, we have suggestions that speaker makers know the answer but won't tell us, or there's some as-yet-unknown physics at work.

On the other hand, when I suggest psychoacoustics might be responsible for the perception of a change in sound, it is aggressively rejected without counter-evidence. Why?

Indeed, why are we generally happy to accept that mood, drugs, illness, or tiredness change perception of sound, but some of us are unwilling to accept that another mental/biological state -- knowing what you're hearing -- might also have an effect on perception of sound?
 
On the other hand, when I suggest psychoacoustics might be responsible for the perception of a change in sound, it is aggressively rejected without counter-evidence. Why?
You're right.

In the absence of (any) experience (whatsoever), clearly your omniscience is greater than that of engineers who have been working for decades on audio products.

How they missed out on your brilliance and perspicacity. LOL!
 
In the absence of (any) experience (whatsoever), clearly your omniscience is greater than that of engineers who have been working for decades on audio products.
What about the researchers who have been working for decades in the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics?

What about the engineers who have been working for decades on audio products and use double-blind testing? Why do you think they do that?
 
What about the researchers who have been working for decades in the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics?
How many more empty logical fallacies are you going to invoke? Gross, unsupported speculation on your part doesn't help either. Tell us again about listening tests in the nineteenth century.

What about the engineers who have been working for decades on audio products and use double-blind testing? Why do you think they do that?
Magnepan is a great example. Their "dot seven" series resulted from blind testing. You're not, however, going to find an online treatise of their findings. Like Wilson, they use such to make their products better.

They couldn't care less about what anonymous internet amateurs *believe*.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom