Something For The Fuse Guys ...

You will find I am not the one making the extra-ordinary claim. Given how drastic the sound improvement claims are, how come this is never reproduced in controlled listening tests. All these manufacturers, all these trade shows, all these audio magazines, not one ... literally not one controlled listening test that clearly shows expensive cables outperforming decent, but low cost cables. People have even been willing to put money on the line, serious money, that they are willing to lose, if a manufacturer can clearly show their cable makes a noticeable difference. Not better, just different. What is the response ..... crickets.

I have done ad-hoc testing with friends (proper blind testing), as well as participated in testing with audio clubs (again proper blind testing), and low and behold, there is never a difference. These tests usually happen when someone says "this made a huge difference" ... and then they are shown, no it didn't, you just thought it did. Queue the claims of "system not resolving enough" or "you don't know how to listen" .... 




 Report thiscleeds2,469 posts10-22-2019 8:51amroberttcan

...YOU will not be able to show even one documented, controlled listening test that indicates any positive benefit of a high priced fuse in an AC line. Why? ... If they are so dramatic, it should be easy peasy. So why don't they exist?

Please feel free to conduct your own tests, and then share the results with us.
Beware the audio guru.

roberttcan

Given how drastic the sound improvement claims are, how come this is never reproduced in controlled listening tests.

Again, please feel free to conduct your own tests, and then share the results with us.

Conducting a proper, scientifically valid double-blind test of an audio fuse would be a tricky undertaking, because you need quick switching for that type of test to have any validity at all. You’d probably need to have two identical components - with the fuse being the only difference - and then switch between the two components. I’m not sure what the point of the exercise would be, though. Your beliefs are already established.


Beware the audio guru.

I have it in writing folks, you DO need to do quick switching in order for a listening test to have any validity. 

Belief would imply leap of faith, i.e. no proper proof. That is not the same as a validated outcome based on controlled (and repeatable) testing. 


cleeds2,470 posts10-22-2019 9:10amroberttcan

Given how drastic the sound improvement claims are, how come this is never reproduced in controlled listening tests.

Again, please feel free to conduct your own tests, and then share the results with us.

Conducting a proper, scientifically valid double-blind test of an audio fuse would be a tricky undertaking, because you need quick switching for that type of test to have any validity at all. You’d probably need to have two identical components - with the fuse being the only difference - and then switch between the two components. I’m not sure what the point of the exercise would be, though. Your beliefs are already established. 

roberttcan

I have it in writing folks, you DO need to do quick switching in order for a listening test to have any validity.

This is completely mistaken and not at all what I wrote:

... you need quick switching for 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 of test to have any validity

If you want to play "gotcha" regarding blind testing here, you'll have to find another foil.

Contrary to misguided belief, double-blind AB(x) testing does not stipulate fast switching. The speed at which switching occurs is completely up to those conducting the test. However, in controlled testing, fast switching has resulted in a far higher likelihood of a difference being noted.

cleeds2,471 posts10-22-2019 9:56amroberttcan

I have it in writing folks, you DO need to do quick switching in order for a listening test to have any validity. 

This is completely mistaken and not at all what I wrote:

... you need quick switching for 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 of test to have any validity

If you want to play "gotcha" regarding blind testing here, you'll have to find another fo