emaidel was right about the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses

[E-Stat]

Since when is a fuse used in a crossover?

You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?

Your logic is flawed with this arguement.

Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire!

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

[3db]

You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?


Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire!

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

spellchecker or better typing skills

My point on the rsistors in the crossover is that its formost function is of the tighter tolerance of the resistance. That it can behave as a fuse is a side benefit . I'm guessing that Wilson wanted to knock the component count down and saw an opprtunity to do it with the resistor which was already designed into the crossover.

[E-Stat]

I'm guessing that Wilson wanted to knock the component count down and saw an opprtunity to do it with the resistor which was already designed into the crossover.

And your guess would be wrong. I have already stated the reason. Hint: it was not to make the product cheaper via reduced part count. I see you continue to duck my question about your direct experience in this matter. The silence speaks for itself.

rw

[3db]

And your guess would be wrong. I have already stated the reason. Hint: it was not to make the product cheaper via reduced part count. I see you continue to duck my question about your direct experience in this matter. The silence speaks for itself.

rw

I already answered your question....I won't take part in a fuse upgrade unless subjected to a DBT test whihc prooves to me that its worth the money. I don't wnat subjective influence ( i don't necessaitly mean hearing only) sway my decision.

And as I told you, the resistor is used mainly for the tighter tolerance of the resistor and not because its a better sounding fuse.

[E-Stat]

I already answered your question....I won't take part in a fuse upgrade unless subjected to a DBT test whihc prooves to me that its worth the money.

Please describe your proposed DBT methodology with fuses.

And as I told you, the resistor is used mainly for the tighter tolerance of the resistor and not because its a better sounding fuse.

[shaking head in disbelief] Like I said, you completely miss the big picture. Stating the obvious benefits of RN60 resistors has nothing to do with the underlying advantage to using this approach.

rw

[JohnMichael]

The fuse was only $30. I thought I would have that much fun trying a new tweak. If I waited for everything in life to be tested first I would have missed out on a lot. $30 is a bottle of wine.

[bfalls]

Apparently, you do not know what a DBT is or you wouldn't have asked that question. Hint: it is impossible unless you introduce spurious black boxes into the equation with contacts that would completely mask the results. Great idea! My conclusions are based upon experience, not arm chair speculation.


No scientific endeavor relies upon theory alone. Thank heavens! It requires experimentation and validation. Theory alone fails to acknowledge one or more relevant factors later discovered. Do you remember what the original theory was for the ideal atmosphere inside the Apollo capsules?


I'll ask the question again and see if you will respond this time. Have you ever bypassed a fuse before and listened to the difference? Or conversely, added another fuse to the signal path?

rw

If the results are so easily negated by the introduction of contacts in a "spurious black box" the difference must be very small. What about the contact areas on the AC plug (both ends), power switch, mechanical source switch, speaker protection relay, speaker selection switch? I'm surprised anyone gets good sound out of their systems at all. Too much contact area. Just think of the improvements to be had by engineering these parts cryogenically.

On the same note, what about changes in temperature. Are your listening sessions temperature-consistent? You do understand the relationship between electronic parts and temperature coefficients, right?

What about air pressure/moisture content? All have their different effects on sound. Are your ears really that discerning? Are they cryogenically-treated? Call it arm-chair speculation, if you like. I think what you're hearing is "arm-chair hallucination".

[bfalls]

You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?


Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire!

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

I understand what you're saying. This means the resistor is being used to set the power limit of the tweeter. Should you exceed the limit, no more resistor. To be prudent, the resistor would need to be running close to it's limit to be effective. Part of a fuse's value is the speed at which it opens when it's limit is exceeded. I don't think it would be as quick with metal foil as with a strand of wire. I hope the owner has a schematic. Most failed resistors I've seem are difficult to read the color-code from. More likely, the owner has to send the speaker in for repair. Let's see, what would shipping and repair run for a Wilson WATT system? Now that's engineering!

Power cords. Another thread, another time.

[E-Stat]

If the results are so easily negated by the introduction of contacts in a "spurious black box" the difference must be very small.

The measured voltages of ppp passages is indeed small.

What about the contact areas on the AC plug (both ends), power switch, mechanical source switch, speaker protection relay, speaker selection switch? I'm surprised anyone gets good sound out of their systems at all.

You keep switching the topic from in-signal to AC, but I'll change tracks. They all matter. Ideally, one's amp would be soldered directly to the AC line. Hospital grade outlets and higher quality plugs do provide greater contact area and tension.

On the same note, what about changes in temperature. Are your listening sessions temperature-consistent? You do understand the relationship between electronic parts and temperature coefficients, right?

I am very sensitive to temperature and humidity differences because my stats require different bias settings for those differences. During a two hour listening session, however, there is little change to either. Fuses undergo thermal changes as well.

I think what you're hearing is "arm-chair hallucination".

When the first solid state amps started appearing in the 60s, they were dreadful sounding, but all the measurements (known at the time) looked good. Those with discerning hearing didn't ignore their senses until the engineers figured out the issues. When the first digital players started appearing in the 80s, they were dreadful sounding, but all the measurements (known at the time) looked good. Those with discerning hearing didn't ignore their senses until the engineers figured out the issues. Feel free to wait twenty years before you can enjoy these kinds of improvements.

rw

[E-Stat]

To be prudent, the resistor would need to be running close to it's limit to be effective.

Yes. They are mounted on a heat sink.

More likely, the owner has to send the speaker in for repair. Let's see, what would shipping and repair run for a Wilson WATT system? Now that's engineering!

Is that what you would do? Brilliant! That's the problem with all your speculations because it illustrates the obvious limitations of in-the-box thinking. Fortunately, engineers behind such fine products are far smarter. There is a user-accessible panel in the rear.

rw

[audio amateur]

The fuse was only $30. I thought I would have that much fun trying a new tweak. If I waited for everything in life to be tested first I would have missed out on a lot. $30 is a bottle of wine.

You must be an uber wine snob to pay that much!

[Feanor]

Apparently, you do not know what a DBT is or you wouldn't have asked that question. Hint: it is impossible unless you introduce spurious black boxes into the equation with contacts that would completely mask the results. Great idea! My conclusions are based upon experience, not arm chair speculation.
...
rw

Not necessarily 'black boxes'. To be a valid DBT it is sufficient that the person who switchs the leads and records which component is used in which trial, be out contact with the test subjects (evaluators) thoughout the experiment.

[JohnMichael]

You must be an uber wine snob to pay that much!

It has been a long time since you have posted anything useful.

[E-Stat]

Not necessarily 'black boxes'. To be a valid DBT it is sufficient that the person who switchs the leads and records which component is used in which trial, be out contact with the test subjects (evaluators) thoughout the experiment.

Actually, that would not be a double blind test. You describe a single blind test. One of the participants will certainly know the active choice.

rw

[Feanor]

Actually, that would not be a double blind test. You describe a single blind test. One of the participants will certainly know the active choice.

rw

I strongly disagree. I said the person changing & recording the setup is not in contact with test subjects during the experiment. In effect that person is a black box -- it is not necessary that the "black box" be an non-human device.

[E-Stat]

I strongly disagree.

Look up any reference and you will find that you are mistaken.

"A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group."

That is why it is called "double blind". Both parties are blinded. Which is why guys like Arny Krueger use black boxes (for which the effects of them on the test are never established). In medical trials, the adminstrators are given physically identical pills and don't know which is the placebo. Which brings up another difference between *real* medical DBTs and audio DBTs. With medical trials, "training" has no effect. Especially when the results are derived based upon physiological testing. With audio trials, however, the ability of one to discern differences most certainly benefits from training.

rw

[Feanor]

Look up any reference and you will find that you are mistaken.

"A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group."

That is why it is called "double blind". Both parties are blinded. Which is why guys like Arny Krueger use black boxes (for which the effects of them on the test are never established).

rw

I accept the definition although it pertains to experiments (e.g. medical), where there are both experimental and control groups. Maybe you could explain what a "control group" would consist of in case of audio experiment, e.g. an ABX test.

In practical terms, in the audio instance, it is sufficient that the test subjects have no external clue which component they are listening to when asked to decide whether it's A or B (or C) they are hearing. Having the guy who swapped the cables in the room, (smiling and nodding), during the listening could certainly constitute a clue, however if, as I say, he has no contact with the test subjects then he is merely an anthropomorhic black box.

Really, the bigger problem for the audio test is establishing the statistical limits that would preclude random guessing as the cause of the result. This requires some minium number of participants and trials.

[E-Stat]

In practical terms, in the audio instance, it is sufficient that the test subjects have no external clue which component they are listening to when asked to decide whether it's A or B (or C) they are hearing.

While I don't disagree, that is fundamentally a single blind test. I have used my college professor wife to proctor SBTs. My old listening room had two doors and I always left the room first, she entered through the other door, made a change, left the room and I returned to what was again an empty room to eliminate inadvertent cueing.

rw

[Feanor]

While I don't disagree, that is fundamentally a single blind test. I have used my college professor wife to proctor SBTs. My old listening room had two doors and I always left the room first, she entered through the other door, made a change, left the room and I returned to what was again an empty room to eliminate inadvertent cueing.

rw

The original question, as I saw it, was whether you can have an objective audio test without resorting to some sort of electro/mechanical "black box" device. In practical terms you can. My wife is not a college professor, but like yours presumably, she wouldn't give a good gawd damn whether or not one component sounded different from another.

Fine, so tests like you yourself describe don't technically fit the definition of DBT because -- I suppose -- they don't absolutely quarantee administrator neutrality. But they are sufficiently objective because the "administrator" can't influence the results short of lying about which component was which after the results are tallied, and what would be the motive?

[E-Stat]

The original question, as I saw it, was whether you can have an objective audio test without resorting to some sort of electro/mechanical "black box" device.

I am responding to 3db's claim that only DBTs can be valuable aids for assessing audible differences with audio gear. While he has not responded yet to my question, I suspect he really does not understand what a DBT entails and the series of unsupported assumptions presumed by ALL audio based DBTs that involve discrete components and not just computer generated content.

rw

[emaidel]

$30 is a bottle of wine.

I too have paid $30, and often, a good deal more, for a good bottle of wine. Now that I'm retired and on a fixed income, paying over $100 per bottle is a fading memory, but when that memory was alive, I discovered some truly wonderful wines to be savored on special occasions. Grand Marnier at $40 per bottle is nice, but Grand Marnier Centennaire at $140 a bottle is a lot nicer!

The first Hi-Fi tuning fuses I bought cost $40 each, and the more recent purchases were at $35 each (it seems that the fuses are "on sale" everywhere right now). A lot of money for a fuse, but a drop in the bucket for the improvements they made.

[audio amateur]

I too have paid $30, and often, a good deal more, for a good bottle of wine. Now that I'm retired and on a fixed income, paying over $100 per bottle is a fading memory, but when that memory was alive, I discovered some truly wonderful wines to be savored on special occasions. Grand Marnier at $40 per bottle is nice, but Grand Marnier Centennaire at $140 a bottle is a lot nicer!

I don't know if you guys have super expensive tastes in wine or perhaps wine is very expensive in the US (which shouldn't necessarily be as it is made over there too).
In France you can get a decent bottle of wine for 7 euros (that would be about 9 bucks) and a very good one for 15 (19 bucks). But then this is France...

[emaidel]

I don't know if you guys have super expensive tastes in wine or perhaps wine is very expensive in the US (which shouldn't necessarily be as it is made over there too).
In France you can get a decent bottle of wine for 7 euros (that would be about 9 bucks) and a very good one for 15 (19 bucks). But then this is France...

Wine, like anything else, comes in many, many varieties, styles and qualities. We can purchase wine here for about $9 a bottle, but it usually isn't particuarly good. Every once in a while a "bargain-priced" wine is exceptional, but once the word gets out, the price skyrockets. This happened about 15 years ago with a Cabernet Sauvignon from The Hess Collection that sold for $11 a bottle, and was rated "Wine of the Year" by The Wine Spectator. Almost within minutes, there wasn't any available, and the few places that had some left charged a good deal more than $11.

Decent Frrench wines here in the U.S. usually cost considerably more than $30 per bottle, with many selling for several hundred dollars a bottle. For those who can afford to spend that much (which excludes me), there is much to savor and enjoy.

The best wine I can remember tasting was the 1996 vintage of Opus One from California. The initial selling price for a bottle was $100, which climbed from there once the word got out that that particular vintage was as good as it was. A bottle of '96 Opus One in a restaurant was about $150 to $200, and well worth it.

On the other hand, a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon from Columbia Crest, from Washington State, which sells for a good deal less than $20 is pretty remarkable too.

To those of us who really love wine, paying a lot of money for a single bottle is oftten well worth it. We don't just gulp the stuff down, but savor every nuance there is to be savored, and drink such wines only on special occasions. The same can be said for Dom Perignon champagne: it's pricey stuff, but still some of the best champagne in the world.

Audio equpment isn't much different: while most of us can't afford Krell or Mark Levinson equipment, I doubt we wouldn't hear what it is that makes those products cost as much as they do. My "Columbia Crest-equivalent" to audio gear is Parasound and Adcom, but the Krell and Levinson compares with Opus One and the like.

Lastly, a friend sent me a 1964 bottle of Chateau Lafite Rotschild Pauillac (which retailed at the time for well over $400 a bottle). I was stunned that this person would send me such an expensive bottle of wine, and I made certain that my wife and I drank it on a truly special occasion. The result? It was nice, but only that - nothing particuarly special, and certainly not worth anywhere near $400.

[audio amateur]

We don't just gulp the stuff down,

I am no expecting you to. You are talking here to someone who has grown up in France, a.k.a bread cheese and wine country. Where I currently live (when I am not studying), a village of about 3000 inhabitants, we have a cheese grocer, a wine 'caveau' and not one but two bakeries.

If you mostly drink wine on special occasions, then I understand a little better.
There seems to be wine at the table most days in my home, and at 30$ a bottle, that would add up quickly

[emaidel]

.
There seems to be wine at the table most days in my home, and at 30$ a bottle, that would add up quickly

I guess it would! My wife and I drink wine more than on only special occasions, but don't drink it every day. Perhaps we should, but if we did, we'd certainly pay a helluva lot less than $30 for each bottle!

And, I Googled "1964 Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauilllac" and discovered the average selling price for it in the U.S. today is a whopping $562!!

Let's see now: this thread was originally about the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, then moved onto a discussion/argument about double-blind listening tests, crossover networks and now the price of wine. Where shall we take it next? The mating habits of horses perhaps?