Fuses and sound quality ?
- Thread starter Fuzzbuster
- Start date
- Status
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
You appear to have misunderstood my reference. I was pointing out that in the roughly 200 year history of electronics, we have not yet found factors outside of resistance, inductance, and capacitance to explain the behaviour of electronic circuits. Thus, we have not yet found an electronic factor to explain why changing a fuse causes a change in sound.
However, we do have explanations from the field of psychoacoustics.
Of course, that doesn't mean there can't be a reasonable explanation in terms of electronics for why changing a fuse makes an acoustic difference. There might even be an as-yet undiscovered reason for why changing a fuse makes an acoustic difference. Both are possible.
But, until evidence is provided for either one, they seem unlikely. We simply have more evidence in favour of psychoacoustic explanations.
Yes. Why do you think they use blind testing?
I'm sure that's true.
Of course we have! EMI/RFI shielding/resistance most certainly makes a difference! Is that outside your experience, too? Ask Belden why they shield a wide range of cables. What exactly is the metric for quantifying its efficacy? In this case, however, I suspect the answer is simply RLC based with the complex amplifier-speaker interface.
Understand that examination of simplistic metrics-while-attached-to-nothing are meaningless. It is the interaction between a cable and amplifier that generates the non-linearity. Gene Czerwinski was quite surprised by how much zip cord alters the signal.
"The distortion patterns were noticeably different, not only between the cables, but also between the input and output ends of each cable. The implication here is that the cables change the way that the complex load is seen by the amplifier. Voishvillo reported that upon seeing this, Czerwinski exclaimed "But they're only short cables!"
audiotemp
Super Member
If you want to spend that kind of money on a fuse, that might blow a week after installing it. Have a nut. It is your money. Personally, I think its ..well .. a total waste of money.
It may help you lose weight. In your wallet.
I feel like you are talking to me...about the fuse that goes in my old Fluke multimeter (with 2A current and 1000V voltage ranges). $25 or something to replace that fuse versus free for a whole new meter at HF (w/coupon).
P.S. I did buy the fuse. An old Fluke is a terrible thing to waste.
Last edited:
audiotemp
Super Member
And whilst we're still here...
Just a refresher.
Last edited:
+48V
hi-fi or die
What a tremendous non-answer.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.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Noise is an external or generated factor rather than a fundamental parameter. Are you claiming the special fuse sounds different because it's shielded?
If so, how much EMI/RFI will a shielded speaker fuse reject compared to the EMI/RFI picked up by the unshielded leads inside the speaker cabinet?
Or are you claiming that the different fuse has significantly different resistance or inductance?
If the resistance is higher, it's actually attenuating the signal. How will that improve sound?
If the resistance is lower, it's still almost zero ohms. How much sonic effect do you think it would have to alter the resistance an equivalent amount to, say, shortening an internal speaker lead by about a centimetre?
Or, are you claiming that the special fuse has higher inductance than the near zero of a conventional straight-wire fuse?
If so, it's going to very slightly attenuate high frequencies. How is that going to improve the sound?
It really is annoying to watch someone spent pretty much the entire thread ridiculing and dismissing other posters, proclaiming loudly from the top of the highest nearby piece of furniture how little the peons know, while providing virtually no input to the actual discussion.
Last edited:
Just responding to your overtly incorrect statement.
You continue to miss the point about amplifier-cable interaction. Did you follow the provided link?
Yours will be the last word. Why argue with someone's imagination?
Last edited:
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
My statement was correct. The three fundamental factors or parameters of all electronic circuits are resistance, inductance, and capacitance. Any passive circuit can be constructed from combinations of resistance, inductance, and capacitance. Circuits are not constructed from combinations of resistance, inductance, capacitance, and noise. Circuits may generate or be affected by noise, but they are not constructed from it.
Yes. That speaker wires have sufficient resistance, inductance and capacitance to affect acoustics is largely accepted, and demonstrable with appropriate test equipment.
How does that apply to a fuse -- which is nothing more than a thin wire typically less than an inch long -- and has negligible resistance, negligible inductance, and essentially no capacitance, such that the internal wiring of the speaker has vastly more resistance, inductance, and capacitance (if the wires run near each other) compared to a fuse?
bimasta
Addicted Member
I have a power amp that used fuses in the direct output to the speakers, to protect them. I removed them and replaced with speaker wire (preferring to trust my good sense. I think there was a slight improvement in sound. So I can buy that a better fuse may help in this application.
But I balk when talking of their normal use, e.g. in power supplies. But some audiophiles swear by them. My hearing isn't state-of-the-art, and frankly I don't care about a .5% improvement.
But I balk when talking of their normal use, e.g. in power supplies. But some audiophiles swear by them. My hearing isn't state-of-the-art, and frankly I don't care about a .5% improvement.
I LIKE MUSIC
Super Member
To be clear I am not taking sides in this discussion.
Those that follow some of my posts know that besides being an audio person, I am (or at least was) a professional RF person. I can show that changing coaxial cable in professional two-way, mission critical radio systems used by law enforcement and first responders can change the performance of the system. I can show this 100 percent of the time.
But that does not mean that changing the fuse in a radio will make it talk farther or hear better.
Just because there may be a difference in the performance zip cord at audio frequencies does not automatically mean that different power fuses fuses will cause differences in audio signal quality. They may or they may not, but the logic does not mean that they must.
Expectation bias.
A person reads a glowing review or manufacturer's glowing claim of performance of XYZ. The person spends their hard earned cash, buys the product, installs it, then listens to the music.
What is the chance that there was absolutely no (zero) expectation bias? This brings us to multiple blind testing, which can be another can of worms.
As can be seen from the FAA example above, expectation bias can be subconscious in nature.
To be clear, because there are 2 or 3 things in the entire universe that I do not know, I cannot with any certainty say one way or the other about fuses...
Those that follow some of my posts know that besides being an audio person, I am (or at least was) a professional RF person. I can show that changing coaxial cable in professional two-way, mission critical radio systems used by law enforcement and first responders can change the performance of the system. I can show this 100 percent of the time.
But that does not mean that changing the fuse in a radio will make it talk farther or hear better.
Just because there may be a difference in the performance zip cord at audio frequencies does not automatically mean that different power fuses fuses will cause differences in audio signal quality. They may or they may not, but the logic does not mean that they must.
Expectation bias.
A person reads a glowing review or manufacturer's glowing claim of performance of XYZ. The person spends their hard earned cash, buys the product, installs it, then listens to the music.
What is the chance that there was absolutely no (zero) expectation bias? This brings us to multiple blind testing, which can be another can of worms.
As can be seen from the FAA example above, expectation bias can be subconscious in nature.
To be clear, because there are 2 or 3 things in the entire universe that I do not know, I cannot with any certainty say one way or the other about fuses...
Such requires empirical experimentation.
My approach is a simple one shared by Frank Van Alstine. I modified one interface at a time. Then compare the two for a difference. Then determine whether or not the difference is an improvement.
I plan to conduct a different experiment with my current Sound Labs speakers. The backplates include an L-pad to control HF level. It has been suggested by some users (and the manufacturer) that using a high quality Vishay resistor will improve transparency. I will do the same thing with them as did I with the Acoustats. I'll modify one first. Actually, I'd rather that change not improve transparency because sometimes having the ability to attenuate the top is useful.
How so? If you had ignored me, you would not have replied. What I said is the truth. This forum has people that dont quite believe in magic......a little sure, I think we all do. But we are smart enough to demand a little proof to back up the sales pitch. Your usual rap of; "only if people were as smart as the people that design expensive tiny items, the world would be better", gets a little old. You keep saying engineers have the results of studies proving what you are talking about........but they wont publish it. I find that a huge red flag. Either they really dont have such studies, or they dont like what the studies show, so they wont publish. Which is it?
You will do the comparing? That will surely result in a false positive because you expect their to be a difference in sound. That is not a scientifically sound test.
From serious consideration. Sorry, but speculation doesn't change my empirical experience.
Kindly quote anything I've posted and I'll be happy to respond.
In the real world, the expense of *publishing* data about product knowledge makes zero financial sense.
ROFLMFAO.
It costs ZERO to put a link up on the internet. Publishing new advances often unlocks money for research that would not be coming otherwise. I call BS on your "reason" for not publishing even the slightest bit of evidence to back up the claims.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Empirical experience consisting of no more than "I heard it!" or "We heard it!" can't be considered reliable unless cognition (what you know) is separated from acoustics (the sound that enters your ears) so that cognition can't bias your perception of sound.
That's why Magnepan and other manufacturers employ double-blind testing.
Engineers don't waste their time writing dissertations of product advancements. They spend their time working on product advancements.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
In the real world, companies typically rush to publish results in white papers and scientific journals because it generates investment and further discoveries. For obvious commercial reasons, sometimes specific details are elided, but the essential discoveries are proudly announced at no cost to the authors. Scientific journals, magazines, Web sites, etc. typically bear the cost of publication because interesting and valuable discoveries help sell journal subscriptions.
- Status
