Studies On Residential Power Line Noise - Part 8: Audio Grade Fuses For Home Theater

Conradicles

It is a shame that these losers mucked up your thread DK...for what it is worth most of us appreciate your work. Thanks!

unc2701

I'd like to point out that Bybee AC filters connect to hot, neutral, AND ground, so they clearly have nothing to do with fuses. The simpler implementation that's just on the hot line still requires a ground...

heiney9

bikezappa wrote: »

WRONG

And ohms law has no relation to economics.

Well spoken, very articulate :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

It's a shame you're not capable of intelligent discourse as I'm always willing to listen in cases where the presenter can articulate, organize, support and generally construct a coherent rebuttal. In your case I fear that's not at all possible..........which in the end leads to a serious lack of credibility.

I don't always necessarily agree with DK's findings, but I sure as hell respect his intelligent, well though out, well organized, logical approach to whatever it is he's working on.

H9

gonzalc3

Conradicles wrote: »

It is a shame that these losers mucked up your thread DK...for what it is worth most of us appreciate your work. Thanks!

I agree... Its a shame that some people start questioning the good work that DK has done..
At first, I was skeptikal with all the power cords, fuses, soloist, issues, as I also have a degree in mechanical engineering. But instead of attacking people or questioning them, I decided to actually test them myself...And I can only support on what DK found.. There is an improvement in sound... And I am actually thinking on testing cd cleaners next...

DK,

The clap helps you to identify some reflections, but try using REW and do some measurements.. I did this and worked with the people at GIK accoustics to treat my HT....

slack56

I love this arguement between Bike and DK. I have to chime in on this one. Let's remember there is a point of diminishing returns. With a rig as awesome as DK's that point is farther along than my rig no doubt. And as long as DK is getting some satisfaction from the myriad of improvements to his system I am happy for him.
As a retired computer programmer I realize the benefits of tweaking. As a hobbyist I know most of the improvements I make with my computers will never be noticed but the knowledge and the enjoyment I get from it makes it worthwhile.
I don't like the attacking style of Bike or the "ignorant and ridiculous" retort from DK. You both loose credibility points for that. I am on the fence between both of you. I cannot argue with anything that DK has said, scientifically he seems to be on solid ground. Now Bike has very valid points as well. Most of us cannot benefit from half of the upgrades that DK has done so in essence it is snake oil. But so are the millisecond improvements I make on a computer. The difference is I pay little or nothing to improve my computer whereas DK spends a small fortune for his improvements.
With a Denon 3803 for the HT and NAD 3150 for my two channel enjoyment not too much that DK does will have a perceivable impact on my equipment. Even the Silver Tributaries I splurged on don't make much of a difference. Radio Shack 14 ga. oxygen free copper sounds absolutely fine to me. .50 cents a foot or 5 dollars or 500 dollars a foot. Each to their own. Personally I am into best bang for the buck. So if sand bags help my turntable cool, if I have to buy some 500 dollar isolators, forget it.

G

madmax

Face wrote: »

Wait, we don't already know everything there is to know?

Some people believe we have known everything there is to know since the 1900's. Truthfully, THOSE people probably already know everything they will ever use in this lifetime.
madmax

bikezappa

bikezappa wrote: »

My simple question for DK or anyone else: How can a resistive network, fuses or line cords, reduce noise in the electric power to your equipment?

No hysterics. no profanities just some explaination.

I have asked this many times but never get an answer.

Simple question, never an answer.

unc2701

bikezappa wrote: »

Simple question, never an answer.

Would you allow that different configurations are more or less likely to introduce additional noise or reject more noise from outside the system? Ignore for a moment noise already on the line.

olilugo

Well I am mad as hell... I can't even contribute because I just don't know enough of what you guys are talking about...

Here is my take, and I am very sirous about not knowing enough. I am no EE or is it EEE anyways....

I would say this I completely agree with contributing with the best of intention to educate and advance the knowledge. That said DK made his hipotesis, his experiments and his findings.
I see nothing wrong with it.
As any normal cource of action or reaction, it is bikezappa right to challange the findings and he should take it upon him self to conduact his own experiment and proof one way or another that DK was right ot wrong.

It is very simple really, if bikezappa feels so strong about the results, there must be a miss step in DK's findings that can possible account for his results, or it could be proven that DK was right on the money and everyone has learnd something more than what they knew yesterday.

Remember, at one point the earth was though to be round, and some took it upon himself to prove otherwise.
Even the mightly Einstein has been proven that some of his theories were not as accurate as he proposed them.

This is just my 2c from a non Scientist.

bikezappa

unc2701 wrote: »

Would you allow that different configurations are more or less likely to introduce additional noise or reject more noise from outside the system? Ignore for a moment noise already on the line.

Thanks for addressing my question.

If the configuration is made up with a network of C and L, yes noise could be rejected or added. depends on the values and circuit of the L and C.

In the line voltage , 120V at 60 Hz, I don't undertsand what noise could be rejected unless you use a filter network with the proper capacitance and inductance to resonate with the noise. The frequecy of the noise is critical to filtering the noise. Noise from an FM signal could be filtered with the proper C and L because you would know the frequency of the FM broadcast. If the frequency of the noise is unknow or random the filter design becomes difficult to be effective as I understand it.

I do know that a simple isolation transformer between the outlet and electronic equipemnt can reject noise but this noise can still be reintroduced in the line cord connecting to the transformer.

bikezappa

olilugo wrote: »

I would say this I completely agree with contributing with the best of intention to educate and advance the knowledge. That said DK made his hipotesis, his experiments and his findings.
I see nothing wrong with it.
As any normal cource of action or reaction, it is bikezappa right to challange the findings and he should take it upon him self to conduact his own experiment and proof one way or another that DK was right ot wrong.

It is very simple really, if bikezappa feels so strong about the results, there must be a miss step in DK's findings that can possible account for his results, or it could be proven that DK was right on the money and everyone has learnd something more than what they knew yesterday.

Remember, at one point the earth was though to be round, and some took it upon himself to prove otherwise.
Even the mightly Einstein has been proven that some of his theories were not as accurate as he proposed them.
QUOTE]

I dispute and I think I have the right to dispute an observation that contradics EE, electrical engineering theory. Resistance cannot filter noise. Plain and simple. Resistance reacts to ALL, and I mean ALL frequecnies the same way. Capacitance and inductance react to frequecies in very different and understood ways and can filter noise. A fuse is resistance and a line cord at 60hz is resistive only. At 50,000 hz yes it does have capacitance and a small amount of inductance.

I see no reason to prove some one is wrong when their observations contradic basic EE theory. I just question there observations. Please ask DK why he thinks fuses filter noise, because he won't respond to me, except with name calling.

By the way the Greeks knew the earth was round 2000 years ago and published papers estmating the diameter close to a few %. Look it up for a fasinating story of clever measurements.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

Bike, must be nice to work in a field that is so cut and dried. Just plunk everything related into the formula's of OHM's Law and viola, you have a black and white answer. Wish the world really worked that way. :rolleyes:

Reproducing an audio signal has many variables as well from input to output that Ohm's Law doesn;t take into account by simply knowing I, R, or V.

What? What's that you say? Them power cords performance can't be condensed down to just I, R, and V? Now that you mention it, I seem to remember something about Maxwell's equations and some field theory stuff from some of my engineering courses. I also vaguely remember my physics professors talking about quantum interactions of an electric current with a conductor. That's a whole 'nother world of math.

dkg999 wrote: »

I admire DK for his passion and willingness to experiment, and I for one have learned a great deal from his posts and experiments. Maybe some of what his detractors post should be thought, and not written.

Thoughtful and intelligent discourse is always welcome by me, even if it is an opposing view. No honest and intelligent person wants to continue in error. I would never want someone to remain silent if they have something helpful to contribute. Pointing out procedural errors, poor experimental design, math and theory errors and leading the reader to a more correct understanding are valuable. Emotionally dismissing something as "bull" or "I just don't see how it works" does not contribute to understanding.

Conradicles wrote: »

It is a shame that these losers mucked up your thread DK...for what it is worth most of us appreciate your work. Thanks!

The real shame is that some people can't contradict an opposing position with reason and logic and then resort to emotional outbursts, personal attacks and other distractions and disruptions. It is a sign of weakness.

unc2701 wrote: »

I'd like to point out that Bybee AC filters connect to hot, neutral, AND ground, so they clearly have nothing to do with fuses. The simpler implementation that's just on the hot line still requires a ground...

Are you sure that that applies to every type of Bybee AC filter? I would think that some modified version of the small "Slipstream" filters would be applicable to fuses. What do you think?

bobman1235

Conradicles wrote:

It is a shame that these losers mucked up your thread DK...for what it is worth most of us appreciate your work. Thanks!

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The real shame is that some people can't contradict an opposing position with reason and logic and then resort to emotional outbursts, personal attacks and other distractions and disruptions. It is a sign of weakness.

Funny how when someone who agrees with you and praises you calls others "losers" you're not so quick to dismiss him, eh Doc?

I can't imagine how quickly you'd pounce on someone denouncing YOU as the loser.

DarqueKnight

Bob,

You sound bitter.

It's just not that important to me. You and your naysayer brethren are nothing more than idle entertainment...just something to do if I am in the lab babysitting a network simulation run or in the kitchen watching the stove.

Really.

gonzalc3

bikezappa,

With respect to power cords:

It will make a difference to replace them in two situations:

1) When the original power cord that came with the component has a very high gauge.
2) When the power cord is not shielded, and it is place in the back of a component rack where there is a lot of electromagnetic fields generated by the equipment.

With respect to the fuses, I don't know how but they do influence the sound...

slack56

I don't suppose we could get onto more important things like blind listening tests. A B comparisons from a neutral party. All this hub bub over nothing. I don't know of a boutique audio component manufacturer including PS Audio that will subject themselves to a blind listening test between their equipment and other more reasonably priced stuff. If I am wrong send me a link, I would love to read it.

G

heiney9

So Bike, is it also your opinion that fuses which are in the signal path do nothing to alter the sound? I have a pair of vintage Polk's where the tweeter is fused, I am in the process of bypassing the fuse entirely. I hope to hear a benefit. Not sure the office rig I use the Monitor's in, while a computer fan is running in the background, I'll be able to discern a difference.

You are an EE so what you say? I understand you have admitted that you can;t hear differences.........but I'd like to know how you would interpret OHM's law on this one.

H9

unc2701

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Are you sure that that applies to every type of Bybee AC filter? I would think that some modified version of the small "Slipstream" filters would be applicable to fuses. What do you think?

Patent for his AC filter attached. It's more of a traditional filter than the slipstream product, which I can honestly claim I have no clue WTF that's all about. However, looking at the sizes & amperages of them, it's safe to say that particular product wouldn't fit in a fuse of the sizes you've got.

Have you seen a technical document for the slipstream filter? I haven't found one.

madmax

Most EE's are idiots when it comes to high fidelity. I know, I am one and I work with a bunch of others. I know only two other EE's who underderstand anything about audio beyond what they can theorize using typical equations. Its just too complex for them to comprehend.
madmax

megasat16

madmax wrote: »

Most EE's are idiots when it comes to high fidelity. I know, I am one and I work with a bunch of others.
madmax

:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D

Chuck, I think it's a little over statement, don't you say?

madmax

megasat16 wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D

Chuck, I think it's a little over statement, don't you say?

Not really, at least out of all the ones I know personally. I'm not talking about anyone on here or other forums, only the ones I have had daily personal interaction with, one to one, in person.

madmax

Edit: Actually, I have met more audiophile EE's than I've worked with. Included would obviously be the engineers at Polk and other audio type companies. Never had daily interaction with them though.

F1nut

slack56 wrote: »

I don't suppose we could get onto more important things like blind listening tests. A B comparisons from a neutral party. All this hub bub over nothing. I don't know of a boutique audio component manufacturer including PS Audio that will subject themselves to a blind listening test between their equipment and other more reasonably priced stuff. If I am wrong send me a link, I would love to read it.

G

That's because they are considered worthless.

bobman1235

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Bob,

You sound bitter.

It's just not that important to me. You and your naysayer brethren are nothing more than idle entertainment...just something to do if I am in the lab babysitting a network simulation run or in the kitchen watching the stove.

Really.

I am bitter. YOu're a passive-aggressive jackass intellectual who obviously thinks he's above everyone. ANd like most people who are full of themselves, you pretend to be magnanimous when in fact you're just a giant hypocrite who resorts to the same tactics you decry in others.

Have fun on your high horse, don't fall off.

slack56

So if someone from PS Audio sits in a room and cannot tell the difference between their high end components and something from Tripplite you consider that worthless?

G

Conradicles

I am no EE or an eloquent writer, I just think folks who tag other folks threads with negative comments need to be choked until they turn blue.

F1nut

slack56 wrote: »

So if someone from PS Audio sits in a room and cannot tell the difference between their high end components and something from Tripplite you consider that worthless?

G

The following sums it up my view rather well.

Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.

ViperZ

madmax wrote: »

Most EE's are idiots when it comes to high fidelity. I know, I am one and I work with a bunch of others. I know only two other EE's who underderstand anything about audio beyond what they can theorize using typical equations. Its just too complex for them to comprehend.
madmax

If you want to insult yourself, feel free, but don't insult the smart people. I am an EE and I don't own bose.

bobman1235

If I may m ake a quick comment about the blind vs. non-blind tests : I ask those that are so quick to discredit blind A B tests, which based on evidence here seems like a valid criticism, you have to at least be open to the idea that NON-blind comparisons are tainted by the subject's knowledge and bias towards certain products.

Cables and power outlets and - although most doubtful - fuses may have some difference to those with "golden ears", but if you discredit the most common scientific ways of determining difference, and base your entire opinion on what is by definition a flawed and biased listening test (there's a reason why things like drug trials are double blind - placebo effect), what makes the non-blind test more valid than the blind one? Because it gets the results you expect / want?

Honest question; again, I'm open to the possibility that these sonic but unmeasurable differences may exist - I certainly don't have the system or heraing capacity to test it out - but to those of you who insist you KNOW, I have to ask how you can know any more than the doubters can claim to know that you're wrong. Bias and placebo are well-defined phenomenon, why are they invalid in your testing?

slack56

Thanks Bob, and F1. I don't dismiss the blind listening test because of analytical vs. emotional sides of the brain are involved. I think the PET test could rectify this question regardless of which side of the brain you are using. The book Change Your Brain Change Your Life was based on PET results. So hook up the PS Audio engineers to the scanner and use science to decide if they can tell the difference in a blind study.
And if it takes hours, days or weeks to decide on which product sounds better, buy the less expensive one, you will never know the difference.

G

tcrossma

bobman1235 wrote: »

If I may m ake a quick comment about the blind vs. non-blind tests : I ask those that are so quick to discredit blind A B tests, which based on evidence here seems like a valid criticism, you have to at least be open to the idea that NON-blind comparisons are tainted by the subject's knowledge and bias towards certain products.

Cables and power outlets and - although most doubtful - fuses may have some difference to those with "golden ears", but if you discredit the most common scientific ways of determining difference, and base your entire opinion on what is by definition a flawed and biased listening test (there's a reason why things like drug trials are double blind - placebo effect), what makes the non-blind test more valid than the blind one? Because it gets the results you expect / want?

Honest question; again, I'm open to the possibility that these sonic but unmeasurable differences may exist - I certainly don't have the system or heraing capacity to test it out - but to those of you who insist you KNOW, I have to ask how you can know any more than the doubters can claim to know that you're wrong. Bias and placebo are well-defined phenomenon, why are they invalid in your testing?

I am of the opinion that it takes a while to "get a feel" for how a system sounds, regardless of the component being switched. I've made many changes in my system over the past couple years, some of which at first sounds very similar to the previous component. But after days/weeks, subtleties started coming out. And it wasn't always that I was replacing something with a more expensive item, so I wasn't "wishing" it to sound better because I just paid a lot of money for said item.

When I added my first power amp to my system, it sounded good, but not drastically different from my receiver. But when I decided to sell that amp to try something different, I temporarily went back to my receiver and I noticed that something was lacking -- it just sounded kind of flat. I needed to spend some time with the amp before realizing what it was doing for the sound.

I've made several other changes in my system (preamp, cables, CD player, etc), and sometimes I've noticed differences right away, sometimes they have taken a while to sink in.

To me, a quick A/B swap (double blind or otherwise) of anything is not a good way to determine if there's a difference.

Same holds true for other things too. I play golf casually, and tennis much more than casually. I've played tennis my whole life, and have gone through many tennis racquet's in that time. I can pick up any racquet and play with it, and most any decent brand/string/string tension will feel good enough to hit with. But it's only after playing with a racquet for a week or two that you recognize the subtleties of it, what you like and don't like about it, and determine if it'll be the one you keep. Some people might think string is all the same? Wrong. I don't know how to measure it, but each type of string plays differently. Only a very good player with an intimate knowledge of their particular racquet will be able to tell the difference, but it's there as anyone in to the sport will be able to tell you.

I think this same concept applies to audio.

I don't normally chime in on these topics, as they are typically filled with emotional people on both sides of the topic, but I figured I'd get my 2c in here somewhere.