Fuses fuses fuses

It is always good to remember that ’objectivity’ in all derivations of the word and it’s attached vectors and meanings..... exists solely at the will, whim, desires, aims, and projected stance - of an exclusively subjective reality. Objectivity is a projection. All forms of science attached to the leading edges, defining standards, fundamental concepts and historical backdrop of all human endeavor state this point unequivocally.

Except for the technical aspects of engineering and the nature of it's schooling and collective methodologies.

Such proponents, adherents, and mental leanings of a specific sort of mind of those who lean in that direction... they are taught that objective reality exists, or that it is implied within such a given collective envelope... that objective reality somehow -exists.

It does not.

It takes a certain depth of self awareness and intellect to derive the given point in logic, and it’s origins in the world of logic.

The vaster components of human reality reject it (ie the bulk of humanity), due to the origins of ’mind’ ...and logic being formed and ensconced in mind and body.... but that does not make it any less true.

If one researches this given point, that is what they will find.

The concept of objective reality has been useful, yes, but it remains a concept -- and by all logic, cannot slip the confines of subjective origin and carrier.

It’s sort of a ’round about way of saying that observation cannot be dismissed... and the very incomplete science of engineering in audio is not an ultimate truth.

This question of fuses, for example, has multiple complexities in it's envelope of points and ’facts’, and only when the bulk of them have been properly worked out, does a more clear answer emerge.

This is not a ’first past the post’ kind of endeavor with regard to defining and reaching an answer. Even a three year old can tell you who won a horse race, and this question and answer set of ’fuses in audio’ is as far from such a simple concept as a horse race -as you can imagine.

The number of variables are not overly high and do not present too much complexity, but mind, ahhh..mind... the given mind in the question and data sets which might potentially be discerned....~that~ is another matter altogether.

good fuse-holders are generally copper alloy, silver plated in many cases, are available.

Non magnetic direct plating, in some. (no magnetic intermediary plating, ie nickel based)

Eaton and Littlefuse makes some beryllium copper silver plated fuseholders. Just a quick search away..at digikey, for example.

A fuse, but it's very nature, by it's very design parameters...exhibits some very well known "in-harmonic/non-linearity", or odd ordered distortions... when exposed to dynamic signal flow.

DC or ac application of a fuse in the world of audio means it is subject to having signal modulated though it, in almost every single case of use. Except that of lets say a DC output power supply into another dc circuit. Minimized flow changes.... but there may still be some residual modulation in the throughput of the given fuse, if it is hooked up to a circuit which modulates draw..as... Audio = inconstant dynamic ac signal.

The human ear is quite sensitive to the sort of non complementary distortion signals that a fuse contributes to the signal it is being modulated by.

Again, all of which  (the fuse behaviour) is well known in the fuse business and associated science and engineering.

We do know the ear is inordinately sensitive to those odd ordered distortions.

Thus removing a fuse from a circuit is the biggest level of gain we can 'hear', in the given fusing situation (installing a conducting wire jumper/bypass, etc).

Altering the given in-situ fuse in one way or another may change those complex inharmonic signal modulations, which humans will, from all evidence shown..very likely hear as changes in the given signal.

No mystery.

Directional aspects are apparently the issue being debated at this time. A little more difficult to illustrate, within the confines of expected science and engineering, with respect to the average reader's education and scope of awareness in engineering - but not impossible.

But the given requisite is very unlikely to appear to those kind of people --who simply like to demand explanations. Which, due to psychology it may be they are not listening and, importantly..attempting to understand the given explanation or invoking their own intelligence capacities when reading the explanation. The brain/body interpreting.. and the given data  envelope...can each be all over the map, so it is a stroke of luck, almost, if they meet at all.

There is also money on the table, as this fuse scenario and overall market of audio...involves how people hear and what they desire to hear, or like to hear when listening to audio signals.

Depending on the given company, some of that information is shared, some of it is held back as internal lore.

And so on.

I made a nice post... then realized it contained too much information.

Whoops.

The liquid is not inherently directional. Yet our cables are marked as so... and do illustrate a quite prominent directionality in listening.

Call it a quandary, if you will. A puzzle for the intrepid.

I wrote this just a bit of time ago, on another forum.

This is tied to the fuse issue and who may hear it and who may not. Complexity of systems and how they are assembled, etc can all play into this. Pay particular attention to the last two bits. It is a notable part of the disconnect point in these discussions:

A note from someone who has done many versions of many systems:

Perfect dynamic and level matching of passive and active can be a pain. All active or all passive tends to be the best ’match’ in seamless cohesion, where the bass does not sound disconnected to the given upper main box or transducer.

Powered subs in a set of mains always seems like a good idea, until you hear the dynamic contrasting disconnect. Dynamic contrasting or dynamic linearity (oxymoronic, but hey...) of passive and active are different from one another. Once heard or realized...then it’s over, forever, as you will forever after hear it in...pretty well - all of them.

Home theater, who cares, seamless is a unobtainable dream for most in those scenarios, and it seems the design is for bass emphasis anyway... but in two channel home audio, it can be laid bare, after a time.

We can lie to ourselves as that is literally the design of the ear, in one of it’s capacities...which is to do a form of ’fill in’ work. It has to do with how we decipher spoken word, in real time. Not really a lie to the brain but a form of sped up word deciphering via ’pre-load’ of a word upon hearing the initial aspects of it... and we can overlay that capacity on our musical note analysis.

This is the break point between people who analyze audio signals with their ears (essentially --- learn new languages) and people who mask and pre-load....who call it all snake oil and lies.

The next part of the problem..... is that it is now shown what the philosophical origins of objective science have said and knew as being correct..from the very beginnings of the concept of logic: that objectivity cannot exist - that objectified isolated realism, local or distant, is not possible.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-realism.html

The reality, the only reality that the results propose, is: objectivity is a fabrication, a projection... of a fundamental reality which is entirely subjective and entangled. That we only posses probability, and theory, and not fact. That 'Fact' cannot exist.

And that’s just the upper lip of the rabbit hole......

I said ’quantum’, and nearly got away with it. :p

The underpinning is that a ’fact’ is a name, a moniker, a logic misnomer... for a highly predicable theory. But it remains theory.

The use of the word 'law' in science is also an attempt to put social and cultural group pressure on individuals to conform or be punished by the group. At least this is part of the traditional meaning of the use of the word law. Thus we can see the the word law remains as being in the world of human social/cultural structure and in the supposed world of logic, has zero place in the world of science.

So we can have the word law in the world of science, if we are looking to prosecute people and possibly kill, ostracize or beat them to death, in public, for 'violating' laws. Which, according to the tenants of science, is patently absurd and against the very fabric of science and what it is supposed to stand for.

But the word works very well in religion. Is science with laws -- a form of dogmatism?

Yes, but it always remains that they are conditionally facts and that in reality, facts don’t exist. That facts are a human construct, an idea, like ’chair’, or numbers/math.

All existence is from a human point of view, in all analysis that ’we’ are aware of. It is entirely subjective and logic itself is a construct, like fact, law, chair, number, and so on. All inescapably relative, inescapably theoretical and of a subjective construction. Objectivity only existing in the pressured opinion and projection of the non self-aware, for the most part (some are mildly self aware). Objectivity is a child branch and construct of a subjective mind and reality. Objectivity, as far as we can tell, exists no-where else.

Same thing for local reality, and forests and trees. All of existence is subjective theory with high predictability, but inescapably theory and outside of fact, as facts don’t exist. It’s just a moniker for a relatively predictable observation by a subjective reality self- reflection.

It would be good for some to remember - or understand that for the first time. That the only fact we know, is that facts don’t exist. Paradox, like the wave particle quantum quandary. Predictable en-masse, spooky action at a distance, in the quantum underpinnings of that en-masse grouping.


Engineers are 'allowed' to have 'facts', so they can build things without resorting to the reality of theory and possibly building things that kill people. They require maximum stability and quality in their theory and it must be unchanging to allow for as perfect a predictability as is possible. That kind of mindset that desires facts and perfect things, tends to be drawn to the field of engineering.

However....no trained scientist worth a damn ever uses or deals with facts. But they will if they have to deal with the public, who live in the 'factual' world, or the world of emotionalized logic projections.

Thank you for putting the word belief in there. Truths and facts exist for engineers and engineers alone. Well, for them and the religious, anyway.

No scientist would ever use facts, they have only theories. Go ahead, ask someone with a doctorate in any of the fields of physics, whether there are any laws and facts in science.

You will get a strong no from all of them. If you get a yes, then be assured, you are talking with an extreme minority. If you talk with a university professor in the realm of physics, you will also find out that they don’t teach facts or laws, they teach theory, and theory alone. For all the right reasons. When talking to the average person they might go for facts and laws, but when dealing with the new or exploring the new, everything reverts to the theory aspect.

When you start to play with the edges of proof and conceptual aspects, like with this subject of fuses and whatnot, things get complex and facts and laws have a long history of getting in the way (when we play in the rarefied reaches of the known). Thus, they revert to theory, which is what they really are.

I’m trying to make it abundantly clear that only theories exist, and there are no facts and laws. And that -- is the underlying force behind reason and exploration in science. It is absolutely critical that exploration go forward under such a mindset, a mindset that is not kneecapped by facts and laws before it even takes a step. All of science in it’s exploration agrees with this, even if you rarely hear them say it.

Teo, why pick me to become unhinged on? I don’t get it. If you want to get into some weird pseudo philosophical argument with me you’re barking up the wrong tree. Fortunately the world is not as complex, unfathomable, opaque, impenetrable, mysterious, theoretical or uncertain as you portray it to be.

I was not picking on you geoff. I was addressing what passes for logic function in most people. I was addressing those who read and post in the thread.

The moment we wander into uncharted territory for ourselves or for the general knowledge base, we have to consider the reform of mind over the reform of others or data. Anything that equals our limits automatically equals our intellectual and musing limits. That we are in it up to our eyeballs and above our nose, so we’ve lost the ability to intellectually breathe. No headroom and no ability to intellectually parallax for the finding of answers. The whole Buddhist ’you can’t put tea into a cup that is already full’ scenario. That answers in a given intellectual quandary that persists do not lie in the harder use of intellectual hammers or the moving of the given hammer to another target. Getting past limits in knowing is an act of purposely wandering into the emotionally uncomfortable, and into reform and change of mind and wiring.

And another 1000 pages of similar text. But one can avoid the text and simply get down to being wrong or being not hard headed and risking oneself and look for the new that one does not already know. Stepping out of the intellectual comfort zone. That stagnation in what you know is death and change in what you know -- is life itself. Our emotional origins -it being the carrier and filter in our logic function- makes us move in opposite directions as the logic would dictate..if it was viewed in clarity.

It was a conversational foil game, nothing more. Simple things, like: the harder the problem to solve, the more fundamental the mistake in the formulation of the question.

So we get to this question of fuses and in a scenario that is now proven to involve our reproductive functions, in cranial connectivity (music is processed in the same area of our brain as reproductive functions-sex, etc). Which means it is the most controlled area of ’mind’ we can attempt to intellectually crack or analyze. Heated, limited, circular, emotionally fired and fused. emotions underwrite and control every motion and thought emergence in the area of sex and we find this also deals with..music. Intellectual discussion in this area? Good luck with that, especially since it involves written text on the internet, where 90% of what we read is emotionally colored by us - and not the writer. If we are emotional on the subject, which we are, we inflect our emotions into their text, so the anger is mostly a mirror, not a reality. Be aware.

Since we all poses different levels of awareness and intellect, emotional involvement and so on, we run the gamut from those who explore and seek to know, to those who use the same angry hammer, over and over again, on everything. And those hammer types are generally not even aware they are using a hammer enabled by their limits.

The whole point of the discussion is to help raise them as well. But it can be pretty difficult to like them when they are hitting you with a hammer and attempting to cut you to ribbons if you get too close to their limits - which they hold onto for dear life. It’s a thankless and debilitating challenge. (Everyone has limits, it’s not an exclusive condition) Smacking people’s internal hornet nests is not a good way to be well respected, but it is an important and humane function. Ie, I don’t think you (and many others) spend so much time on these forums, just so you can feel you are right. It’s something else. It’s this other thing.

People can get very circular in their logic and limit new thinking. Happens all the time, every day, part and parcel of why the world tends to go to crap when it is stressed.