Audiophile fuses...

Don't spend too much time thinking about it; your instinct is quite correct.

Think of digitally recorded sound as though it were the printed text in a book, being read aloud by your DAC. Provided by the time it gets to your DAC it's error free, it'll sound however your DAC and subsequent amplification make it sound.

To get to your DAC, it's been duplicated and transmitted many times in many different ways. Sending data via Ethernet is akin to copying the original book a page at a time, then sending those pages via carrier pigeon from one device to another. They may arrive out of sequence, they may have taken different routes, and the odd pigeon may even have fallen from the sky never to be heard from again - but even that's OK, we just send another.

When they arrive at the receiver, the pages are reassembled, requests are made to re-send any that may be missing, and each completed page or chapter of the book is stored on the shelf (ie. locally in the RAM of your streaming device) until the DAC is ready for it.

Smartening up the pigeons really doesn't change the end result.
 
Ah, but for £500 I'll sell you one that uses carrier eagles. With platinum plated beaks...
For £2000 I can do an eagle with carbon fibre feathers with quantum di-lithium noise suppression, though they are directional - they only fly one way. You need a negatively orientated eagle to send data back.
 
Don't spend too much time thinking about it; your instinct is quite correct.

Think of digitally recorded sound as though it were the printed text in a book, being read aloud by your DAC. Provided by the time it gets to your DAC it's error free, it'll sound however your DAC and subsequent amplification make it sound.

To get to your DAC, it's been duplicated and transmitted many times in many different ways. Sending data via Ethernet is akin to copying the original book a page at a time, then sending those pages via carrier pigeon from one device to another. They may arrive out of sequence, they may have taken different routes, and the odd pigeon may even have fallen from the sky never to be heard from again - but even that's OK, we just send another.

When they arrive at the receiver, the pages are reassembled, requests are made to re-send any that may be missing, and each completed page or chapter of the book is stored on the shelf (ie. locally in the RAM of your streaming device) until the DAC is ready for it.

Smartening up the pigeons really doesn't change the end result.
Speaking of which, I presume you've read RFC 1149? ;)
 
 
Don't spend too much time thinking about it; your instinct is quite correct.

Think of digitally recorded sound as though it were the printed text in a book, being read aloud by your DAC. Provided by the time it gets to your DAC it's error free, it'll sound however your DAC and subsequent amplification make it sound.

To get to your DAC, it's been duplicated and transmitted many times in many different ways. Sending data via Ethernet is akin to copying the original book a page at a time, then sending those pages via carrier pigeon from one device to another. They may arrive out of sequence, they may have taken different routes, and the odd pigeon may even have fallen from the sky never to be heard from again - but even that's OK, we just send another.

When they arrive at the receiver, the pages are reassembled, requests are made to re-send any that may be missing, and each completed page or chapter of the book is stored on the shelf (ie. locally in the RAM of your streaming device) until the DAC is ready for it.

Smartening up the pigeons really doesn't change the end result.
Love the pigeon analogy. Fits the technical implementation quite well too. Brilliant.

Speaking of which, I presume you've read RFC 1149? ;)
Got to love the April 1st RFCs :)
 
Don't you just hate it when you get an upper midrange bloom on your crescendo blasts?
 
Speaking of which, I presume you've read RFC 1149? ;)

Yep :) Required reading for anyone in the business of designing network equipment - which I did, for much of my professional career.

Love the pigeon analogy. Fits the technical implementation quite well too. Brilliant.
Analogy...?

My last full time job (before I started my own business) was with a company that specialise in transporting data over high latency, unreliable links. Normally these were provided via portable satellite radios, but I'm fairly sure they could have been configured to work with actual pigeons if needed.
 
Yep :) Required reading for anyone in the business of designing network equipment - which I did, for much of my professional career.
Same with comms protocol development, which I used to do. The real beauty of something amusing like that is that I think it helps to get across the flexibility of layered protocols better than most dusty academic explanations.
 
Same with comms protocol development, which I used to do. The real beauty of something amusing like that is that I think it helps to get across the flexibility of layered protocols better than most dusty academic explanations.
... Oh dear ,I have just realised that the carrier pidgeons are unidirectional.. They never do back, so the snake oil salesmen were correct and we must use our unidirectional cables.. or at least put 100 VDC bias on them
 
And so it begins...

No, I will weep no more. In such a night
To shut me out? Pour on; I will endure.
In such a night as this? O Oscroft!
Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all—
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that. No more talk of fuses, wire and suchlike. Tis all witchcraft, snake oil and the like. To believe in such matters is surely the path to hell and damnation. Away with you speakers of evil deeds. Begone with you, one and all!
With thanks to Will Shakespeare. 😁
 
Audiophile fuses? 🤣 A fool and his money are easily parted.
 
And so it begins...

No, I will weep no more. In such a night
To shut me out? Pour on; I will endure.
In such a night as this? O Oscroft!
Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all—
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that. No more talk of fuses, wire and suchlike. Tis all witchcraft, snake oil and the like. To believe in such matters is surely the path to hell and damnation. Away with you speakers of evil deeds. Begone with you, one and all!
With thanks to Will Shakespeare. 😁
Surely you mean Christopher Marlowe or Francis Bacon?
Oops another topic.
 
I know the thread has moved on since the OP question (I didn't read all 9 pages). But to clarify :

1. The original OP test wasn't valid because they replaced a fuse with a piece of thicker wire and are therefore not replacing like for like?

2. That the OP did a modified test, somewhat randomized and the result was they couldn't hear a difference?
 
1. The original OP test wasn't valid because they replaced a fuse with a piece of thicker wire and are therefore not replacing like for like?
It wasn't valid as a fuse v fuse test, but I'd say is was valid for what I intended - to see if the fuse caused any degradation compared to not having a fuse at all.

2. That the OP did a modified test, somewhat randomized and the result was they couldn't hear a difference?
I summarized it all in post #177, but essentially what UTT said below.
 
Last edited:
1. Pretty much.
2. Yes, but they could hear a difference still with some of the fuses. Wasn't really randomised in any meaningful way due to lack of opportunity, so still has the problem of unintentional bias - but bear in mind the OP was expecting to rubbish audiophile fuses, so his bias should have been in the direction of not hearing a difference.

There's also the fact that the OPs amp is modified, and it's not known whether that has any effect (at original spec, is the standard fuse not a restriction?).

Plenty of room for further testing if you're up for it, @Coulson 😄
 
but bear in mind the OP was expecting to rubbish audiophile fuses, so his bias should have been in the direction of not hearing a difference.
I'm always wary of that, because "expectation" bias can work against what we expect. Did I subconsciously hope there'd be a difference? I can't possibly know.

There's also the fact that the OPs amp is modified, and it's not known whether that has any effect (at original spec, is the standard fuse not a restriction?).
That's a very interesting point. I'd say the biggest improvements from my mods are in the area of dynamics and transient response (including micro-dynamics). That implies faster voltage and current swings, so more demand on the power supply chain?
 
I think some people maybe missing the point of Oscroft’s threads, he quite clearly loves his hifi hobby. He enjoys tinkering and modifying his components, sometimes expecting differences and sometimes not(And not always for the better). He likes to share with us his findings and talking to us about them. And he welcomes and responds to different opinions.

I enjoy reading them, there interesting and fun, keep them coming!
 
I think some people maybe missing the point of Oscroft’s threads, he quite clearly loves his hifi hobby. He enjoys tinkering and modifying his components, sometimes expecting differences and sometimes not(And not always for the better). He likes to share with us his findings and talking to us about them. And he welcomes and responds to different opinions.

I enjoy reading them, there interesting and fun, keep them coming!
Agreed. Absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of tinkering and experimentation.
 
Yesterday I swapped out the fuse on my Panasonic OLED tv (fz952 - came with integral soundbar, since replaced with a B&O one).

When I took out the old one it was a black "HiFi tuning" fuse, not cheap. Manual also says not to replace the plug or cable. Cable is hardwired, not a kettle lead or fig 8

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 00.28.41.png
 
Yesterday I swapped out the fuse on my Panasonic OLED tv (fz952 - came with integral soundbar, since replaced with a B&O one).

When I took out the old one it was a black "HiFi tuning" fuse, not cheap. Manual also says not to replace the plug or cable. Cable is hardwired, not a kettle lead or fig 8

View attachment 1562065
Some TV you have there which requires 2400 Watts of power.! My perfectly standard LG 55 inch OLED , has a rated 335watt supply.. switch on surge probably, but draws 110watts. Fitting a 10amp fuse, in an appliance which requires 1 or at most 3 amps is wrong. The moulded plug supplied may well include a choke or a capacitor, to reduce EMC radiating BACK from the TV into the mains wiring... A problem with Switch mode supplies ,not the reverse
 
I was also surprised that such a high fuse was specified, the cable itself is H05VVH2 which is rated 300-500v. TV is rated at 520W according to the service manual

However, the picture has exceptional colour accuracy which was one of the reasons I bought it. I haven't noticed anything wrong with its working, quite the opposite since its a flagship model. Its paired with flagship ub9000 and bwt850eb players, performance is exceptional, not noticed any EM interference issues


If it is wrong how did it pass UK safety regulations, doesn't someone checks these things? Plus Panasonic make the best mainstream tv's so you wouldn't expect them to design a bad flagship OLED
 
I was also surprised that such a high fuse was specified, the cable itself is H05VVH2 which is rated 300-500v. TV is rated at 520W according to the service manual

However, the picture has exceptional colour accuracy which was one of the reasons I bought it. I haven't noticed anything wrong with its working, quite the opposite since its a flagship model. Its paired with flagship ub9000 and bwt850eb players, performance is exceptional, not noticed any EM interference issues


If it is wrong how did it pass UK safety regulations, doesn't someone checks these things? Plus Panasonic make the best mainstream tv's so you wouldn't expect them to design a bad flagship OLED
This belongs in the correct TV Forum, not here.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom