 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.184.186.218
In Reply to: RE: Latest adventures: tube damper position, fuse orientation and more - what next? posted by Japesgalore on December 13, 2010 at 03:43:42
You're telling everyone that you heard a difference in sound due to the way the fuse in your CD player was oriented?
Is it a normal everyday $.25 fuse or one of those audiophool gold plated, damped, electron flow marked $50 fuses?
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Follow Ups:
It's a normal everyday $.10 fuse, and the difference is there without a shadow of a doubt, although it's hard to say which way is better - it seems more a question of taste, although smoothness and engagement should be every audiophile's aim...
and what do you attribute that to?
"it seems more a question of taste, although smoothness and engagement should be every audiophile's aim..."
A subjectivist that deals in absolutes, funny, I prefer accuracy, resolution and transparency, engagement you might get from a recording or performance.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
"and what do you attribute that to?"
Erm, because there is a distinct difference in the signature of the sound?
One way is more etched with perhaps better separation of instruments but the other has a fluidity and is more emotionally engaging. I prefer the latter, but isn't that what anybody would want from their music?
I say it's a question of taste because I can imagine many audiophiles preferring the former, just as I did for a little while. However, I'm always challenging my subjective viewpoint and, when it comes to tweaks, I stop actively listening to the sound and just try to get a feel for how my body/emotions are reacting over a longer time frame. I get this impression that audiophiles are too 'into' their gear, their expenditure, and the assumptions they've made about the hobby, often affected by hype, that they end up limiting the potential of their systems in providing genuine musical pleasure.
Precision is all well and good, but not at the cost of toe-tapping rhythm and getting a sense for the emotional cues (which I'm finding ever more of in the subtle fluctuations of the tones within the music - aka transparency?). I know well the difference tweaks can make to this balance - ever since I got into this hobby I've been battling unnatural 'precision' caused by electrical interference and resonance, often subtly over-damping things. I've found the journey quite mind-blowing, in fact. Fuse direction reminds me of trying to decide which direction of speaker cable (VenHaus CHeLA) I preferred - I went for the way that was less precise and more fluid sounding.
I'm getting very close now to fully enjoying the music without feeling that I'm listening to electrically reproduced sound, and my source, amp and speakers have remained a constant from the beginning. All my tweaks and cables have seriously refined things but it's the culmination of lots and lots of little steps, most recently of which being this fuse orientation business. That's why I ask about the next step that might provide a similar subtle, but blatant (read absolute:), improvement.
We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to fuse orientation.
Enjoy.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
"We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to fuse orientation."
I'm down with that...
except I did just read your post to norm stating that people like me are just making 'outrageous, nonsensical claims'. Ok, I won't bite, but I will say that what I and my girlfriend heard was real. Does one witness count for anything? Guess not. I can't prove it to you personally much the same way that you can't prove to me that you tried it and that there definitely wasn't a difference in your case....
So, until next time..:)
Ok, I won't bite, but I will say that what I and my girlfriend heard was real.
Certainly everything we perceive seems real. But not everything we perceive is due to some actual physical change which manifests itself as an actual audible difference.
People have perceived improvements in the sound of their systems as the result of placing photographs of themselves and their equipment in their freezers, or writing special words with special pens on various things.
So would you place photographs of yourself and your equipment in your freezer in an attempt to improve the sound of your system? How about the special words written with a special pen?
Does one witness count for anything?
No. At least it doesn't count for anything beyond your subjectively perceiving some difference.
To get beyond that, you have to adequately control for the known fallibility of human subjective perception.
se
this morning: it seemed real, but how do we know, as he's the only one that observed this 'ACTUAL physical change'. Oh he arrived at a different location claims he. Perception of a different place cannot relied on, its not proof any more than claiming someone else observed/witnessed this ACTUAL physical change of location which manifests itself as proof (in his mind). Repeating such a perceived ACTUAL physical change a number of times cannot be construed to be a test and thus is not a scientific result.
Steve Eddy must have a lot of fun on his way to work: he would never know whether he's going to ACTUALLY physically arive or just perceive it so.
Isn't he supposed/reputed to be an ACTUAL physical cable maker - if actually so then his posts must be written by a ghost writer.
Or are they just snake oil for the gullible who perceive?
Cogito Ergo Credo
I like them, whatever the reasons for it may be, up to and including purely psychological reasons. I'm in it purely for my own selfish pleasure and enjoyment.
se
Are you not taking advantage of foolish people who think interconnects make a difference by using psychology to line your pockets with money?
Cogito Ergo Credo
Are you not taking advantage of foolish people who think interconnects make a difference by using psychology to line your pockets with money?
I'm not using anything. I simply offer cables that to me sound good, look good, feel good, and even smell good.
I make no claims about them beyond what they are, what they're made of, and how much they cost. And since I assume that I am dealing with mature adults, I further assume that they're perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they wish to try or buy my cables.
se
I must say, you look pretty pathetic in these debates.
I'm not surprised that recently booted "jihad" recommends your cables left and right. The only question is - who in his right mind would buy cables, created by manufacturer who pretty much denies the notion that cables make difference.
...I don't attempt to pass off my subjective experience as anything more than that.
When he starts doing things like proffering "tests" with his girlfriend, he's stepping outside the subjective box and attempting to "prove" something more than simply saying that his system sounds different to him when the direction of the fuses are changed.
The only question is - who in his right mind would buy cables, created by manufacturer who pretty much denies the notion that cables make difference.
I don't deny the notion at all. I simply don't know the answer one way or the other. And to that end, I make no claims one way or the other.
Further, I don't care what the answer is. I only care about my own subjective pleasure and enjoyment. That's because like many others here, I actually am a subjectivist. And if God himself came down and said cables don't make an actual audible difference, I wouldn't do anything differently.
The problem is there aren't many subjectivists here. Instead they are what I would call pseudo-objectivists. These are the folks who aren't content actually being subjectivists. Instead, they feel the need to "prove" themselves beyond their subjective experience. And then they get their panties in a bunch when their objective claims are questioned or challenged.
se
REMOVE AUDIO ASYLUM FROM THE WEB: MODERATORS PUT YOUR FEET UP AND HAVE A LONG HOLIDAY.
A poster heard a difference that is being refuted (by someone who did not hear it).
The OP wrote .... "There was clearly a difference when I swapped it around and I think I preferred it ..... Upon reversing it she was much happier with the sound - it just drew her in more than before and I have to agree."
There is clarity in the statements from the OP. Steve Eddy has managed to screw and extrapolate the OP's statement into a theme of proof. One senses se is hiding something, or is a commercial con job believing that any publicity is good publicity (its mentioned he manufactures cables - naybe he's living a guilt complex: he thinks he's conning his clients because he can't prove his expensive cables sound better than el cheapos).
There is clarity in the statements from the OP. Steve Eddy has managed to screw and extrapolate the OP's statement into a theme of proof.
OP in this context means Original Poster, not Original Post.
So instead of quoting from the original post, why don't you to take a look at the post I actually replied to.
se
'AUCTUAL AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE' se 'ACTUAL PHYSICAL CHANGE' se
Could se cease abusing the word actual - difference and change are actual.
I've noticed in previous threads se uses actual to present himself with a glow of pseudo science fact.
I'll be lambasted by se. I await his actual rebutal, reflecting his actual view of the actual difference.
'AUCTUAL AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE' se 'ACTUAL PHYSICAL CHANGE' se
Could se cease abusing the word actual - difference and change are actual.
Not in every instance they're not.
I use "actual" to differentiate from "apparent."
ac·tu·al 2c : not false or apparent
ap·par·ent 5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid
One may subjectively perceive an apparent difference which would logically necessitate an equally apparent physical change with there neither being an actual audible difference nor an actual physical change to account for it.
Get it?
se
MORE OBFUSCATION
nt
MORE OBFUSCATION
So wait, which is it, are you saying that your cables are there to create a perceived change or do they actually have an effect on the actual sound, even in the slightest? I'm inclined to believe that cables do, and you probably do too. Do you need a scientific experiment to prove that or do you trust your own ears? Assuming you do trust your ears, wouldn't it be fair to allow others to trust theirs? Please keep that in mind as you read on.
I've done tests with people who were ardent 'scientists' who had up to that point ridiculed my claim the cables made a difference. Really, they were convinced and the discussions went very much the way they do here, including the blatant conceitedness on their part. "It's all psychological blaa blaa" I kept hearing. Until, one day, I did a swap between my normal, unshielded power cables for a Eupen cable, one which has ferrite filtering throughout the insulation of the wire. I noted his reaction being rather matter of fact, clearly hearing a difference, preferring the old way by a mile, but not actually conceding that I had had a point. Like I say, conceitedness. The upside is that he hasn't been as patronising when we've had similar discussions since.
The science is there to prove the effects of magnetism on an electrical signal, and no one here is going to argue about that, but the point is that he was so utterly cock-sure of himself that it couldn't possibly have made a difference only because he thought he had the limitations of science all figured out.
Many people would deem it ridiculous to think that equipment supports could possibly affect the sound, but again, the science is there to support the fact that resonance plays a major part in how different components, including current-carrying ones, interact with each other.
Many non-audiophiles claim there hearing isn't good enough to discern any difference. Though they forget that, like the eye, and any other human sense, hearing is infinitely more adept at picking up on subtleties than any machine. Ah, I think that some would argue this point, and that's probably where a lot of this disagreement stems from.
Cable directionality, on the other hand, has not found a scientific basis yet. But who the hell is anyone to say that there isn't one? We'd all be making fools of ourselves, just like my cousin did, to say that no, it couldn't possibly exist.
For example, when I read about other people trying out and believing that certain obscure-sounding tweaks have made a real difference to their sound, I find it a point of intrigue; not something I would take the time to actively ridicule. Maybe it is just their perception, but I feel it prudent to leave 0.5% to the chance that it may just be real. The next step, if I were bothered to take it, would be to try it for myself. In this regard, the effect of crystals is one area that I'm glad I did investigate, thanks to the 'palatable' marketing of Alan Maher.
It's just insulting to go and tell people that what they heard or saw isn't true. It's probably the same UFOs, ghosts, psychic abilities, oh and God, all of which seem to be on a slightly different plane of believability from each other, even if you do think they're all nonsense. If you disagree with an observation and you want to challenge another's point of view you shouldn't tell them they're mad. What good would that do? Wouldn't you rather help them understand?
I know what it feels like to have different perceptions of music and sound. A lot of it seems to stem from mood, your health and the weather. There's also the hype factor. I'd say a lot of the time people believe in things that they have a vested interest in believing in, whether it be from group pressure or having spent money. With these $.10 fuses there is neither and my mood doesn't change on the flip of a fuse either.
Why do we talk about it on forums? Because we marvel at these things and would love for others to experience and confirm them because there is always a chance that we are wrong. That we can admit, but it'll never happen to someone who says we're just imagining it.
What my girlfriend and I heard was real and whatever tests I did on it has been thorough enough for me to be over 95% sure. More tests may, just may, be forthcoming, just to bridge that last 5%, and to maybe convince the likes of you...not that I think you would actually concede! jk;)
So wait, which is it, are you saying that your cables are there to create a perceived change or do they actually have an effect on the actual sound, even in the slightest?
Neither.
I'm inclined to believe that cables do, and you probably do too.
I'm not inclined to have any particular belief on that subject one way or the other.
Do you need a scientific experiment to prove that or do you trust your own ears?
Given what we know about the fallibility of human subjective perception, one would have to be a fool to "trust their ears" if their goal was to determine with any high degree of certainty any sort of objective reality.
Assuming you do trust your ears, wouldn't it be fair to allow others to trust theirs?
I don't have any problem at all with people trusting their ears to simply tell them what sounds good to them and what they prefer for themselves, whatever the reasons may be.
The problem is that many people aren't content with that. Instead they attempt to go beyond that and try to pass off their subjective experience as something more.
You're a perfect example of this.
You're not content to live with your subjective experience, whatever the reasons for it may be. Instead, you feel the need to try and "prove" to others that your subjective experience is something more. That it is somehow proof of some objective reality.
And when you do that, you open yourself up to question or challenge, just as any other objective claim is.
But when you are legitimately questioned or challenged, you get all upset about it.
You can't have it both ways.
If you don't want to be legitimately questioned or challenged, then stay on the subjectivist side of the road and don't attempt to pass off your subjective experiences as anything more than that.
I've done tests with people who were ardent 'scientists' who had up to that point ridiculed my claim the cables made a difference.
What you go on to describe isn't a test so much as a dog and pony show.
Your "ardent 'scientist'" friends (as well as your girlfriend) are no less human than anyone else. And as such, are no less prone than anyone else to subjectively perceive differences even when there may be no actual physical differences to account for it.
So your "tests" don't bring anything meaningful to the table.
Many people would deem it ridiculous to think that equipment supports could possibly affect the sound, but again, the science is there to support the fact that resonance plays a major part in how different components, including current-carrying ones, interact with each other.
What science is that exactly?
Many non-audiophiles claim there hearing isn't good enough to discern any difference. Though they forget that, like the eye, and any other human sense, hearing is infinitely more adept at picking up on subtleties than any machine.
And this claim is based on what, exactly?
Give me one example of where humans are capable of hearing something which completely escapes measurement.
Cable directionality, on the other hand, has not found a scientific basis yet. But who the hell is anyone to say that there isn't one?
You're putting the cart before the horse here.
So far as I'm aware, no one has yet demonstrated cable directionality exists in the first place, let alone any scientific basis for it.
What my girlfriend and I heard was real and whatever tests I did on it has been thorough enough for me to be over 95% sure.
Your "tests" have absolutely no scientific rigor to them at all. Nor will they until you can adequately control for the known fallibility of human subjective perception.
So please don't try and pass them off as "tests."
se
and have to say, you slice small distinctions with a very sharp knife.
A couple things I need clarity on; it seems like you are saying that one person's experience, like the OP's is subjective but where, in your opinion, does it turn objective? He is offering no measurements or 'testing' in a range of components (with their varying sophistications of power supplies) to conclude that this will have an effect in everything.
You say: "When he starts doing things like proffering "tests" with his girlfriend, he's stepping outside the subjective box and attempting to "prove" something more than simply saying that his system sounds different to him when the direction of the fuses are changed." It's almost if the addition of another person automatically grants plausiblity of some actual change going on here, where I see it not as proof but as two people offering their subjective characterizations of what they individually hear, who just happen to mostly agree.
"Give me one example of where humans are capable of hearing something which completely escapes measurement." I never read journals of hearing/audio research, so I'll throw out a couple here that come to mind, maybe one will hit the ground:
Changes in soundstage width/instrument separation
Soundstage depth
Decreases in very low level stereo system electrical noise, resulting in 'blacker backgrounds', less 'grain' and added detail on recordings, when it is already far below typical home ambient noise levels - how do we hear that?
and have to say, you slice small distinctions with a very sharp knife.
I don't think the distinction between subjective and objective is a small one.
A couple things I need clarity on; it seems like you are saying that one person's experience, like the OP's is subjective but where, in your opinion, does it turn objective?
Where?
Here:
...I will say that what I and my girlfriend heard was real.
He is offering no measurements or 'testing' in a range of components (with their varying sophistications of power supplies) to conclude that this will have an effect in everything.
But what he is doing when he says "what I and my girlfriend hear was real," is making a decidedly objective claim.
"Give me one example of where humans are capable of hearing something which completely escapes measurement." I never read journals of hearing/audio research, so I'll throw out a couple here that come to mind, maybe one will hit the ground:
Ok.
Changes in soundstage width/instrument separation
Soundstage depth
These are all illusions created in the mind, and as far as I'm aware, the attributes which bring them about do not escape measurement.
Keep in mind that all we hear is ultimately changes in air pressure over time. And we have the ability to measure changes in air pressure over time to vanishingly low levels.
Decreases in very low level stereo system electrical noise, resulting in 'blacker backgrounds', less 'grain' and added detail on recordings, when it is already far below typical home ambient noise levels - how do we hear that?
I don't know that we do.
Here's something you might have some fun with.
...and a listener challenge
You'll first have to download Audio DiffMaker which will allow you to easily A/B the tracks.
In each of the sets of two tracks, instead of system electrical noise, one of the tracks has a Sousa band mixed in at I believe -70dB.
Give it a try and see how well you do.
se
Wow, I'll skip all the cock-sure talk and just get to the point where you're talking utter cock.
I never proclaimed my tests to have any rigour in scientific terms, they're tests in terms of allowing ME to find out what suits ME the best, which are tests nevertheless. No? Or shall we going to argue about what the word test means?
Wait, how about I back track now. I said:
So wait, which is it, are you saying that your cables are there to create a perceived change or do they actually have an effect on the actual sound, even in the slightest?
And you said:
Neither.
And what does that mean exactly? How about you elaborate and share exactly what makes your perspective superior to others. As I was saying in my piece, help me to understand and don't just insult my intelligence.
I'm inclined to believe that cables do, and you probably do too.
I'm not inclined to have any particular belief on that subject one way or the other.
And what's that supposed to mean? You sell the damn things, so respects the discussion and say why you do even sell them.
The problem is that many people aren't content with that. Instead they attempt to go beyond that and try to pass off their subjective experience as something more.
You're a perfect example of this.
You're not content to live with your subjective experience, whatever the reasons for it may be. Instead, you feel the need to try and "prove" to others that your subjective experience is something more. That it is somehow proof of some objective reality.
So when someone says 'hello' to me am I to be unsure whether they actually said 'goodbye'? Please, don't be so ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, my observations are 'proof' to no one, they're just observations. It's you that's coming in and telling me that what I heard isn't real.
Many people would deem it ridiculous to think that equipment supports could possibly affect the sound, but again, the science is there to support the fact that resonance plays a major part in how different components, including current-carrying ones, interact with each other.
What science is that exactly?
And I thought we would have at least past that hurdle with you. Are you honestly saying that materials don't have an impact on each other when vibrated?
Cable directionality, on the other hand, has not found a scientific basis yet. But who the hell is anyone to say that there isn't one?
You're putting the cart before the horse here.
So far as I'm aware, no one has yet demonstrated cable directionality exists in the first place, let alone any scientific basis for it.
Obviously demonstration requires for you to see an actual cart being pulled by an actual horse for you to believe it. My point, if it was so hard to grasp, was that enough people, ok audiophiles, have claimed to experience cable directionality (including myself), even though there's no science to back it up.
So what are you on about?
I never proclaimed my tests to have any rigour in scientific terms, they're tests in terms of allowing ME to find out what suits ME the best, which are tests nevertheless. No?
So then what does your girlfriend and "ardent 'scientists'" have to do with YOU finding out what suits YOU the best?
Wait, how about I back track now. I said:
So wait, which is it, are you saying that your cables are there to create a perceived change or do they actually have an effect on the actual sound, even in the slightest?
And you said:
Neither.
Yes.
And what does that mean exactly?
It means that I don't know one way or the other whether or not my cables produce any actual audible differences.
I can neither prove that they do nor disprove that they don't.
All that I know is that I like them. And others do as well.
Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?
I'm inclined to believe that cables do, and you probably do too.
I'm not inclined to have any particular belief on that subject one way or the other.
And what's that supposed to mean? You sell the damn things, so respects the discussion and say why you do even sell them.
For the reason I stated above. I like them and others do as well.
Again, why does it need to be any more complicated than that?
The problem is that many people aren't content with that. Instead they attempt to go beyond that and try to pass off their subjective experience as something more.
You're a perfect example of this.
You're not content to live with your subjective experience, whatever the reasons for it may be. Instead, you feel the need to try and "prove" to others that your subjective experience is something more. That it is somehow proof of some objective reality.
So when someone says 'hello' to me am I to be unsure whether they actually said 'goodbye'? Please, don't be so ridiculous.
You're the one being ridiculous.
What we're talking about here is the well established fact that humans are prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual differences at all.
When we combine this with the fact that no one to date has demonstrated that cables make an audible difference (save for instances of grossly high resistance, inductance and/or capacitance), when someone attempts to assert that cables do make an audible difference based solely on their subjective experience, I don't find that to be compelling evidence which would lead me to believe that they do.
Oh, and by the way, my observations are 'proof' to no one, they're just observations.
But you have in this thread presented them as more than just that.
To wit:
...I will say that what I and my girlfriend heard was real.
Unless you were using a definition of the word "real" that I wasn't previously aware of.
re·al 2a : not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent
What definition were you using when you used that word?
It's you that's coming in and telling me that what I heard isn't real.
I've done absolutely no such thing.
All that I have said is that just because you have subjectively perceived some difference doesn't necessarily mean that the difference was real.
That is NOT the same thing as saying that it's not real. If that is not a distinction you can grasp, then I won't fault you if English isn't your first language. If it is, then the problem goes much deeper.
Many people would deem it ridiculous to think that equipment supports could possibly affect the sound, but again, the science is there to support the fact that resonance plays a major part in how different components, including current-carrying ones, interact with each other.
What science is that exactly?
And I thought we would have at least past that hurdle with you. Are you honestly saying that materials don't have an impact on each other when vibrated?
That's not quite what you said originally, which was:
Many people would deem it ridiculous to think that equipment supports could possibly affect the sound, but again, the science is there to support the fact that resonance plays a major part in how different components, including current-carrying ones, interact with each other.
Other than turntables and some vacuum tubes, I've not seen any compelling evidence that typical sound vibrations have any significant effect on the signal regardless of equipment supports.
If you've some to offer up, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it.
Cable directionality, on the other hand, has not found a scientific basis yet. But who the hell is anyone to say that there isn't one?
You're putting the cart before the horse here.
So far as I'm aware, no one has yet demonstrated cable directionality exists in the first place, let alone any scientific basis for it.
Obviously demonstration requires for you to see an actual cart being pulled by an actual horse for you to believe it.
In a world where there is no compelling evidence for a horse pulling a cart, yes, I would need to see an actual horse pulling a cart, or at least compelling evidence of such, before I will believe it.
Similarly, in a world where there is no compelling evidence for cable directionality, I'm afraid I need more than the purely subjective experiences of others before I will believe it.
My point, if it was so hard to grasp, was that enough people, ok audiophiles, have claimed to experience cable directionality (including myself), even though there's no science to back it up.
So? The number of people making claims doesn't inherently make the claims any more meaningful.
se
"Electrical Engineering" - ever heard about that one?
I can easily believe that you can't hear any difference that equipment support makes - your hearing, your system, your preconceived notions probably make that pretty much impossible.
However, I can't believe that you're incompetent to SUCH extent in a field that's supposed to be your expertise. If it's really the case, you probably need to start reading up on the subject - and these pages are as good as anything. Meanwhile, it would be nice if you refrained from making these comments, that do nothing but further your self-embarassment.
"Electrical Engineering" - ever heard about that one?Sure have.
Now that we've cleared that up, do you have an answer to the question or did you just want to know if I'd ever heard about electrical engineering?
se
Edits: 12/16/10
Parapsychology, perhaps.
Parapsychology, perhaps.
Strangely enough, the Google ad on the page as I was writing my reply was for scientology.org.
se
all your components together. You got rid of all the connectors and their solder joints. It was kinda crazy. I did that partially to a Hafler DH 220 amp kit that I built. I soldered the pre-amp input cable directly to the board of the amp. It actually did improve clarity.
Cogito Ergo Credo
why pseudo-scientists cannot hear fuse direction. Either they are deft or their bad science training forces them to ignore observations.
Pseudo scientists? You mean people that make outrageous, nonsensical claims that can't be qualified and that can't be repeated?
Audibility of fuse orientation is like a wire being directional, it's complete and utter bullshit.
Of course when someone disagrees with you it's because their systems sucks, they can't hear or can't tell the difference.
Kinda like arguing that a certain outlet cover will shield your outlet box when many are plastic(unshielded for you subjectivists) and your walls aren't shielded.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
wires are made? They are cold drawn through a die or a series of dies, and thus develops a grain structure which definitely is directional. Sheet metal is also made in a similar fashion and any sheet metal worker will tell you that the metal has a grain, which most definitely has a mechanical aspect to working the metal. If the grain exists for sheet metal work, why shouldn't there be an electrical aspect also associated with the grain structure?
Stu
They are cold drawn through a die or a series of dies, and thus develops a grain structure which definitely is directional.
Typically it's drawn alternately in opposite directions. Otherwise they'd have to re-spool the wire before running it through the die again. Not a terribly efficient way to draw wire.
Sheet metal is also made in a similar fashion and any sheet metal worker will tell you that the metal has a grain, which most definitely has a mechanical aspect to working the metal.
Yup.
If the grain exists for sheet metal work, why shouldn't there be an electrical aspect also associated with the grain structure?
Why should there be necessarily?
And if there was, it would likely be pretty well known by now. But I've never seen any mention of it in any of the materials science literature. At least nothing at the macroscopic level.
Further, if there were, it would result in non-linear current flow, which would manifest itself as distortion. But I've not seen any evidence of this either, even when looking down to levels around -140dB.
se
that is, if you would even spend the time to try.
Where did someone here claim to be a scientist? Most of us are just hobbyists, just tinkering around (and some waaay beyond me). And Japesgalore did repeat his experiment - for his girlfriend. Also your peer review demand is also a little misguided here; this is not a scientific journal by any means. Hey, where DID your response go that called us all audiophool f*cks?
A little too tightly wound up this season? Nothing that an early Xmas vacation wouldn't solve but you'd probably miss us delusional people.
This coming from the man that likes to keep in touch with his fellow man:
"Competitive cyclist............
is that the same thing I force of (sic) the roads around here on the weekend?"
... respectful, civil interaction between human beings.
In his case, besides usual attributes of great audio "scientist", i.e. being cheap, deaf, aggressive, and having IQ below average, there's one more that makes everything he says even more scientific - he happens to own soldering gun.
nt
They typically are engineers who don't have the capability to engender hypotheses that might account for why fuse direction might matter. Rather the spout the usual "it is alternating current" and ignore their ears assuming they even give a listen.
A real scientist is on the alert for unexpected observation not hidebound by old orthodoxies.
Does that help?
They typically are engineers who don't have the capability to engender hypotheses that might account for why fuse direction might matter.
Here's one: Psychology.
Though engendering a hypothesis should be the responsibility of those claiming that fuse direction matters.
And before they do that, they should first establish fuse direction does matter beyond the psychological.
So it would seem that there's some catching up to do here before people start talking about "pseudo-scientists."
se
based on their own listening experiences. Maybe their auditory systems are more developed and discriminating than yours.
Then you assert, "And before they do that, they should first establish fuse direction does matter beyond the psychological.”
But how does one do that if the technology to do that doesn’t exist?
Your comments remind me of the detractors (i.e. pseudoscientists) of medical pioneers like Fleming, Lister and Semmelweis.
Cogito Ergo Credo
...so what's your point?
If you can't say any more about fuse directionality as photographs of yourself in your freezer, then I fail to see how we've learned anything particularly useful outside of one's own subjective perceptions.
Then you assert, "And before they do that, they should first establish fuse direction does matter beyond the psychological.”
But how does one do that if the technology to do that doesn’t exist?
Who says the technology to do that doesn't exist?
It has existed for quite some time. It's called blind testing.
se
Science is only a tool, not an "end".
I believe it was Einstein who stated a real scientist is one who continutally tries to disprove his own theories.
Cogito Ergo Credo
...beyond the purely subjective, yet go on to make objective claims and assertions based on the purely subjective?
se
a
nt
I can see no way that the direction of a fuse, on the AC line, would make any electrical let alone audible difference.
But that's not the point, not in the Tweaker's Asylum. This is not your sandbox.
I tried what you are trying not too long ago (make sense). There is zero mystery here - You make a change and truly believe the sound changed. It is what is supposed to happen, it's the way we experience the world around us. All I asked back then was for the guy making the claim to pop the fuse out, flip it in the air so he didn't know which way it was pointing, and see if he heard a difference. I was met with the wrath of the Tweakers, was accused of believing the world was flat. Incredible, really.
So my suggestion to you is to save your breath. Do like I do - I come, I click around, think whatever it is I think, and move on.
It's better that way.
...does it make it impossible for it to ever be objective?
I don't know, these arguments tend to go in circles and ignore the fact that subjectivity is held within a framework of objective as well as not-so-objective understanding of facts. I believe that a person IS capable of making a subjective assertion that near enough equates to objectivity because of all other things he knows. To say "well, that's just your point of view," is never a good enough argument for me and one I would never use myself...cos I might just miss an opportunity to learn something. It's when someone starts actively deceiving others, knowingly 'bearing false witness', that it starts to get complicated. As bad as that is, it doesn't help when people start accusing each other of such with no actual grounds to do so, which is what all this has been about.
A theory needs to be verifiable/falsifiable. "Fuses are directional" isn't any sort of theory to speak of. Now, "Because of x, fuses are directional" would be a better start. At least x can be verified or falsified.
But before going down that road, you first need to establish that your subjective perceptions are based on something other than pure psychology.
So first you establish that the direction of a fuse produces an actual audible difference. Once you've done that you can start to hypothesize as to what may be the cause. Then you can start putting the hypotheses to the test.
I don't know, these arguments tend to go in circles and ignore the fact that subjectivity is held within a framework of objective as well as not-so-objective understanding of facts.
What facts?
The typical reason these arguments end up going in circles is because the pseudo-subjectivists are usually in denial of the weaknesses of human subjective perception. They assume that just because they've subjectively perceived something that it MUST be due to some actual audible difference.
And to that end, they never get around to establishing actual audible differences. It's all taken on blind faith.
That doesn't get you anywhere.
I believe that a person IS capable of making a subjective assertion that near enough equates to objectivity because of all other things he knows.
What other things?
The one thing we DO know in all of this, without any doubt, is that human subjective perception is NOT the unerring reflection of objective reality that some seem to believe it is.
Yet that is often the one thing that's utterly dismissed by certain others in these discussions.
To say "well, that's just your point of view," is never a good enough argument for me and one I would never use myself...cos I might just miss an opportunity to learn something.
Well, all I can say is that if you truly want to learn something, then your first task should be setting about establishing actual audibility. And that can't be done by subjective perception alone.
se
a
nt
a
The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
