Yes, its funny that my wife has no problems with my stereo gear except when I play it too loud, but hates to have "messy" wires showing. :-) |
05-11-12: Kijanki
...we discuss here if "major difference in my sound" that Tbg experienced can be repeated and benefit others. Hi Kijanki - Yes, the question of whether fuses can make a "major difference" in sound quality is one of the things we've been discussing. But there's also a contingent of people who maintain that there is NO audible difference among fuses. So that seems to be a topic of discussion as well. At one end of the continuum, we have the folks who say that fancy fuses are amazing. At the other end, we have the folks who say that they're nonsense. I've been exploring, both through discussion and through (admittedly unscientific) experimentation, whether the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As it usually does. Bryon |
Bryon, I'm trying to make some sense of this as well. I don't question Tbg experience but am skeptical, as I was long time ago with cables. It is always important to be informed and that was done thanks to this thread. |
Since the scope of the discussion seems to be broadening somewhat, I'll make a couple of general observations about differences that are alleged but that seem to have no rational basis, or at least no rational basis that is quantitatively supportable. First, it is commonly stated that expectations and the placebo effect can affect perceptions, both positively and negatively. That undoubtedly occurs in some cases. But my feeling is that a more significant effect may be that expectations may bias the EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY in ways that lead to erroneous conclusions. In this case, specifically, it would appear that in many cases claims of substantial benefit from upgrading of fuses result from a comparison between the stock fuse and one or several expensive fuses. But if comparably intensive comparisons were performed between a number of different inexpensive fuses, what basis is there to assume that comparable benefits mightn't have been obtained at much lower cost, in the particular system? Second, I would re-emphasize what I said in my post of 4-28-12: ... positive results don't mean much either, unless:
A)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner, and with sufficient understanding of the variables that might affect the results, such that there can be a reasonable degree of certainty that the result is being attributed to the correct variable.
For example, extraneous variables that could conceivably affect assessment of a fuse, especially one that is claimed by some to require 100 hours of breakin, would include ongoing aging, breakin, loss of breakin or rebreakin of system components; equipment being in a different state of warmup during the different parts of the comparison; differences in contact integrity resulting from removing and replacing the fuse, including scraping away of oxidation that may occur, as well as differences in contact pressure; changes in AC line voltage or noise conditions; changes in room temperature (temperature is a parameter that is fundamental to the physics of transistors and other semiconductor devices); and changes in RFI/EMI conditions.
B)There is sufficient understanding of the mechanisms by which the device works, if in fact it does work, to provide confidence that its effects are not just a quirk of its interaction with the particular system, that would not occur in many or most other systems.
For example, a finding that a fuse makes a difference with a Class AB or Class D amplifier, for which the AC current draw fluctuates dramatically as the volume of the music varies, IMO would say nothing about the likelihood that it would make a difference with a Class A amplifier, for which there is little fluctuation in AC current draw.
C)The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination (a la the stock market, ca. 2000). As a minimum, that would mean going back and forth at least a couple of times between the devices being compared, to verify that the results are repeatable. In saying that, I am not necessarily referring to an immediate ABX-type back and forth comparison, since I recognize that not all differences will be perceivable in a short-term comparison. It is not my expectation that these factors explain all or perhaps even most seemingly implausible perceptions, but that they explain a lot of them. Regards, -- Al |
Almarg, you said,
"The assessment was conducted in a sufficiently disciplined manner to rule out the possibility of misperception, placebo effect, or self-reinforcing mass hallucination..."
The problem here, methinks, is that you assume that nobody who hears the benefit of aftermarket fuses or fuse directionality is capable of conducting a proper experiment. Zen and the Art of Debunkery might be of some help to naysayers in crafting arguments why fuses cannot be of much importance. Please find below a few examples for your consideration.
<> Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo.)
<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.
Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica |
