mc wrote:

So you don't recall what I said, but you'll insult me for it anyhow? *chuckle again*

*Chuckle* some more. That makes you sound so clever, really. Listen
carefully Chuckles: I didn't insult you for what you didn't say. I
insulted you for what you did. I'm sure you have your own special
reasons for insulting me.

But I recall you're the one that suggested there must be a problem with my fuse.
That, you reasoned, must explain what I heard. I then countered that
you are simply a typical techie idiot, trying to find a reason to
explain what doesn't fit all the theories you learned about how audio
works,

Why on earth shouldn't I try to find explanations for phenomena that occur?
What response did you want from me?

You're really THAT stupid, aren't you? As many times as I've made the
point, I can't believe I would have to explain this to you... The
explanations you are "trying to find" are all THEORETICAL. I told you
50 different ways, get off your lazy dogmatic ass and find those
answers for yourself by trying the experiment. If the problem is you
need someone to explain to you how to open your amplifier and replace
the fuse, why don't you ask on rec.audio.tech? You'll get plenty
messages telling you what an idiot you are for not knowing how to
replace a fuse, and plenty more telling you their 6 year-old can
replace a fuse. But maybe after 90 messages or so, someone might
explain the procedure to you. Then you'll be on your way to answering
your questions.

Apparently, you're angry at the people who disbelieved you,
and also angry at the people who thought you might be
telling the truth and wanted to try to figure out how
this strange phenomenon might work. Whom are you not angry at?

I'm not angry at anyone. The problem here is, you and your RAT cronies
are always too stupid to realize your presumptions are not truth.


because they never told about fuses impairing sound quality in your engineering correspondence course. I then told you you could easily verify this for yourself, by performing the same experiment.

Why not tell us a little more about your own results?

I already did in my last message to you. You don't read English very
well, do you?

After all, you are making extraordinary claims.

No I'm not. When established and respected audiophile amplifier
designers support the fundamental principles behind the procedure I
mentioned, there is nothing "extraordinary" about it. The only thing I
find "extraordinary", is that you incompetent nitwits can go on for
sixteen days and three thousand paragraphs, screaming about how wrong
everyone is to "claim" they hear things that you can't find anything
about in your very limited knowledge of music reproduction, while you
offer not a shred of evidence to support your arguments, nor any
willingness whatsoever on your part, to pursue scientific curiousity
and reproduce the test.

In other words, you and your buddies are all dumb, lazy mother****ers
who have apparently grown so fat and stupid from being newsgroup
junkies, you wouldn't recognize any new truths in audio if they were
handed to you on a silver platter. And apparently, you're too stupid to
figure things out for yourselves.


I gather your real hobby is insulting people.

No, that's just a sideline. I don't suffer fools gladly.

It can certainly be evident that something is probably the case. For instance, right now, a member of my family has a temperature of 101 F and I think it is evident that she
probably has the flu. (I.e., something is evident which implies a high probability of
something else.)

Okay, let me try that one out and see if it works: "It has been evident
all along that you are probably an imbecile". Yeah okay, I guess I can
live with that.

But frankly, it never even occurred to me at the time of writing my initial post that the concept of the fuse having an audible effect was at all controversial, since I'd recently read on the net about other audiophiles talking about this aspect of fuses.

I hadn't, except for speaker fuses. Can you point me to some
references? You *do* mean the incoming AC power fuse, don't you?

Yes the AC fuse, and no, I don't recall the exact search terms that
lead me to where some audiophiles were discussing the topic of fuses
sound quality; only that it was an audio forum. However, a 2-second
search of the terms "fuse amp audible" on Google led me to this link
below. Its news to me as well that you can actually buy
audiophile-grade fuses. If you knew how to use a search engine, it
would not have been to you. But I suppose if you knew how to work a
search engine, you'd also know how to replace a fuse with a bit of
solder wire, and you'd be able to understand yourself how this affects
sound quality.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isoclean3/fuses.html

Obviously, your real hobby is insulting people. *chuckle again*

It wasn't a clever line the first time. Do you think that repeating it
makes it more clever? Or that laughing at your lameass cracks enhances
the funny factor? Did you ever wonder why at parties, the only person
laughing at your jokes was you?

Let me toss the ball back into your court. Assuming this effect is real, what can you tell us about it and what measurements have you made?

But do you admit that there is such a thing as measurements, and that if you've
discovered an unusual effect, measurements might help you understand how it works?

Yes. Emphasis on "might". The problem with attempting to resolve
audibility through objective measurements is, what do you measure, and
how do you know what to measure? There are hundreds of tests you can
perform on gear. What if the test equipment isn't sensitive enough to
measure the phenomenon that empirical evidence confirms? In order to
know exactly what to measure, you have to understand exactly what is
producing the phenomenon we hear. In order to try to understand this,
you have to measure. The two tend to cancel each other out.

And what if the phenomenon in question can't be measured by any test
instrument, because it isn't being produced by a change within the
electronic spectrum? Now you're involved in psychoacoustic theory (and
beyond...), about which I believe little is understood (relatively
speaking), within the realm of music reproduction. For example, what if
some phenomenon produces repeatable changes to our hearing mechanism
but not our hifi system, but nevertheless causes us to perceive changes
in our hifi systems? How the hell are you going to explain that with
your test bench instruments? And if you can't measure it, how quickly
do you figure you will conclude the phenomenon doesn't exist? I can't
always tell if you religious audio zealots start out with forever
closed minds, or if you close them so fast, you can't tell they were
ever opened. How do you measure changes in mood, changes in the
environment, changes on a molecular level, changes in the flow of
electron particles, changes in the movement of the earth's crust? I am
telling you with a straight face that what you don't know about the
phenomenon of the music reproduction system, is more than what you do
know.

The smarter engineers realize this. The stupider ones, as found on RAT,
are more like your typical teenagers, who think that because they
learned something new in school today, they now know more about life
than their mommies and daddies.


Or are real audiophile amplifiers supposed to be designed and built without the
use of test equipment?

sigh If only you knew how tiring that 50 year old arguments can be,
when there are always "new fools" in the audio world, that have yet to
understand the fundamentals. I'm only gonna give you one chance to
understand this, and if you don't get it then, don't look to me any
further: there is no scientific measuring tool more precise, or
relevant to music reproduction, than the human auditory system. All
components in audio are designed and engineered according to a set of
beliefs; let's say they are those held by the designer(s) of the
component. This, to a great extent, explains why components sound
different, and why some sound magical, and others like torture. It even
explains why entire countries, are often thought to produce components
of a particular sonic quality, as compared with competing countries.

Test equipment has its place, but many limitations, and can only tell
you so much. Listen carefully now: it should be used as an AID to
actual listening, not in PLACE of it. Get it, Chuckles? It can be used
to attempt to confirm or understand what you heard. But with
intelligent audiophiles, its common sense to HEAR the phenomenon your
studying, before you attempt to understand it with test instruments.
You haven't done SQUAT but flap your gums so far, over the fuse issue.


How long had the amplifier gone unused before you did the experiment, and could it be improving simply because the electrolytic capacitors are re-forming after a long period of disuse?

The insult density here is truly amazing.

Even more amazing... I haven't even STARTED "getting personal". If
Krueger, the resident child pornographer of you RATs, ever shows some
guts and addresses me directly, then you'll start to see "personal".

Statements about my alleged stupidity (etc.) are outnumbering statements about audio about four to one. Let's see whether this ratio holds up as you continue...

Well a least someone's keeping count. There's nothing "alleged" about
your stupidity or your foolishness. If you want to see the ratio climb,
say or do even more stupid things than you already have.

Yes, my wife can. I also tested her today on the sound of the amp after deep-freezing it, and after a few min., she described the same sonic changes that I observed myself. And just like you and the rest of your buds here, she's not an audiophile and has no special listening skills.

Blind test, or did she know which one was supposed to sound better?

No, I never said which one was supposed to sound better, not before,
during or after the test. Nor did I ever mention what exactly we were
testing. However, I did mention after the tests were over, that "there
was this group of imbeciles on a technical audio discussion group I've
been engaged with the last two days", who claim that the series of
phenomenon we just tested, and heard, doesn't actually exist. I get a
kick out of that, every time I test a neophyte and they hear things you
idiots always say can't possibly exist. The thing about neophytes is
that they're usually too ignorant to even understand that there is a
controversy about a phenomenon under test. The thing about audio
techies is that you're all too ignorant to understand that real life
doesn't begin and end within the pages of a textbook, or the
limitations of a test instrument. Its a lot more complicated than your
simple minds can ever grasp.

In fact, every time I improve my system with some tweak or other, I
think about you techno-clowns on these newsgroups and elsewhere, and I
laugh and I laugh some more. I laugh because I know that if I said I
did what I just did and heard what I just heard, you fools will always,
predictably, insist to your last dying breath, "it doesn't exist". But
I walk away always winning, because I have a sound system that sounds
like real music. While you boys have something that no doubt, sounds
like a Russian torture chamber. If you really think I'm going to spend
my life trying to prove to fools like yourself that some phenomenon
does exist, under the exact conditions you will accept as proof, you
think way too highly of yourselves.

And how do you talk to her when she questions your judgments?

She doesn't speak to me disrespectfully, as I was spoken to by all the
little RATs on this newsgroup, if that's what you're asking. I ask her
if she hears a difference, and she tells me she either does or doesn't;
end of story. So your attempt at making a point is misguided, fool.

The same way you talk to us?

Who the **** are YOU to talk? I came here looking for information, I
was insulted right off the bat by you little RATs. One after the other.
I don't see you whining to any of your RAT cohorts about the rude way
they started in on me, do I - hypocrite? I don't get mad me, I get
even.