1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 151208-481

Something For The Fuse Guys ...

There are fuses, and then, there are fuses. 

I'm evaluating some prototype fuses that I received in the mail three days ago. 

Over the past few years, I've used fuses from five different manufacturers. The last three were the Red, Black and Blue fuses from Synergistic Research. Each one incrementally improved the sound of my system. My favorite so far was the SR Blue. 

The prototype fuses being evaluated presently raises the SQ beyond all of the others mentioned above. The major improvement to my ears is better tonal accuracy. Instruments and voices are more life-like. The noise is reduced allowing for a more solid 3-D presentation with the musicians more solidly presented on the sound stage. Overall, more information is fleshed out of CDs and LPs. 

The manufacturer, the price and the name of the prototype fuses will come later. I don't have the information thus far. My understanding is, if all works out, the release date is to be mid-October. 

Stay tuned ... 

Frank
oregonpapa
roberttcan
248 posts
 
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
clearthink
1,421 posts
 

roberttcan" in controlled testing, fast switching has resulted in a far higher likelihood of a difference being noted."

I am pleased to see you acknowledge that abx testing has resulted in revealing differences between audio components this is something you and many others seem to like to deny or refute.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
There it is! It was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test. This is classic pseudo scientist behavior. 
cleeds
6,603 posts
 
geoffkait
It was only a matter of time before controlled double-blind testing reared it’s ugly head. By now you would have thought everybody and his brother knows the results of a double blind test don’t mean anything, anymore than any other kind of test.
It’s unfortunate that it’s virtually impossible to reasonably discuss controlled double-blind testing here. Its advocates seem to suffer from nearly religious fervor, which is an obstacle to conversation.

Such tests have very limited value to the typical audiophile. Those who profess the greatest interest in these tests often seem to have a very limited understanding of not only proper test protocols, but how to interpret the results of such tests. So the discussions lead nowhere.

What I’ve observed over the years is this: Those who most noisily proclaim the necessity and value of controlled double-blind testing very rarely conduct such tests themselves. Why is that? I suspect many references to such tests are just red herrings.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Eggs-ackley! Most likely scenario is a miscreant Wiki scientist’s full blown attack on audiophile tweaks. They are red herrings and they’re logical fallacies. So typical. Highly motivated (who knows why?) escapees from the James Randi Educational Foundation. 🤡

“It can’t pass a double-blind test.”

“Perform a double-blind test and you’ll get your answer.”

“None of those crazy tweaks can pass a properly performed controlled test.”


More to discover