Wellfed, you have put up a good fight, but why do you bother. You have only yourself to convince. The pseudo scientists do not deserve any effort to convince. Fortunately, I just discovered this thread and unfortunately at CES there was no with and without demonstration to hear for myself. |
I am surprised that Wellfed has agreed to this. Who cares what others think? If he hears a benefit, he should enjoy. If they don't, they should not buy the clock. |
Elizabeth, as I said, if you don't want to try it fine. I have not either. How do you know if it is "puffery?" We will leave it to you to try potatoes, paint cans, and engines. No that won't work, you won't try anything; right? |
Elizabeth is obviously in some need to be right. Reason need not be spent. |
Elizabeth, I am sure everyone trusts your bs meter. I do; to be b---s---. |
Double4w, one must be born unlucky.
What do you mean "status as an audiophile?" If you like good wine do you have "status?" If you love good music, do you have "status?" There can be no "serious" answers to such a question.
I still am amazed that some view it as their role as scam police to question the reason of those buying something. This is a capitalist society where anyone is able to sell just about anything. If some buy it, those offering it prosper. If not, they fail.
On too many devices, including wire, isolation devices, ac conditioners, the Intelligent Chip, even more expensive digital players, some have announced that anyone buying more expensive ones are idiots. And then they are offended that no one heeds their warning! Oh, and they often claim their position is scientific, as though they have a clue about science or its methods.
Wellfed, you are tempting me to try the clock. I had hoped to hear a demonstration at CES but could find none. |
We are talking engineering here, not basic science. Engineering uses the best estimates for how to get something done. In engineering there is always the safety factor, something added just in case the formulas lack something.
If as Eldartford suggests, Pabelson is correct that science knows but audiophiles don't, then why is there not just one best cable, one best speaker, one best amp. As engineering exercises with given price points, all amps, cables, speakers are compromises given the limits of technology. Engineering within the limits of what science has researched can tell us what considerations need to be made in designing a speaker, but not how to build the best speaker.
While I recognize Eldartford's science background, most who post here and claim science background's don't have them. Those with no scientific training should not recognize assertions, such as science knows just audiophiles don't. For most this is shear hubris and bullshit. They don't know but believe in common sense not science. |
inperinovations, it is an applied science and as such uses the discovered laws of more basic research.
Also, of course, when you get to a larger scale, such as planets and stars, really heavier objects will fall toward each other more rapidly given their combined gravitational attractions. |
Does any one really believe this will resolve the matter as to whether or not the CLS works? There was a recent report where MRIs were used with partisans of both party and what happened when they got information that contridicted their partisan beliefs. The anger and emotions part of their brain grew active. For some reasons the researchers did not include less partisan individuals.
I expect both parties here will be emotionally connected to their positions.
Even if there is agreement among them, it makes me no more or less likely to try the CLC. This is the same for DBT. Now if somehow MRIs could be used to see if both individuals reacted differently when the CLC was in the room, I would be most interested. |
You guys must really be bored! |
Wellfed, why do you suppose the purpose is to knock the thread off course? Initially, it was an appeal to give a plausible explanation for how it might work, then whether it worked, and then nonsense. Do we share this threads with luddites? |
Hey you squirrels, see the new HiFi+. The best two contributions in audio are the CLC and the IC. Perhaps we should invade Britain. |
Zaikesman, the stuff you posted from PFO strains my credulity. I think of myself as empirical in the best sense of the word and that hearing a difference in an A/B demonstration is sufficient. Peter Belt's stuff, however, has never been available to me to complete such tests, so I have never tried any.
I cringe when I read some reviews which ask for leaps of faith and merely trying the products. I heard the very positive impact of the IC in a demo at CES and have been using these since. I assume there is a scientific benefit to why they work and have made no great effort to keep up with the interplay between mystic explanations, scientific explanations, and simplistic criticisms of both by pseudo-scientists. But the pen is just going too far.
The CLC, is somewhere in between. I had hoped for a demo at CES and understand why there was none. With the number of credible people embarrassing it, however, I may venture forth. With the Bent pen, however, there is little chance. |
Guidocorona, you are always looking up the emperor's pants or under his kilt. |
Above I say, "With the number of credible people embarrassing it, however, I may venture forth." I meant embracing. Sorry about my failing to read what I wrote. |
Guidocorona, do you not want to add "within your understanding of known physics?" |
It may surprise many that I prefer to have some insight into why a product works, but if something works in my opinion within reason I will spring for it. In the case of the IC, I heard a demonstration and bought immediately. In the case of the RealityCheck, I took a chance and was rewarded. In the case of the Brilliant Pebbles, I again took a chance and got some reward.
In most of these, it troubles me somewhat that I do not really understand why or how they work, but they clearly have varying impact.
The CLC clearly defies any reasonable explanation, but does it work? Wellfed says definitely and there is a 30 grace period. Does the lack of an explanation convince me that it cannot and does not work? No, but it does give me pause. |
Tvad, is your comment about trying 3, 4, or 5 and reporting back a put down or do you really want what Wellfed has done? |
Tonnesen, they do offer a 30 trial, I think.
I too tend to not trust reviews, but I also don't trust negative reviews of tweaks that I know do good things.
Life is tough without a trusted dealer to lead you, but we cannot go home. |
Zaikesman, although it is obviously not done in medical research, were you to tell people that this medicine is worthless or will harm you slightly the real and the placebo would both have harmful no effects or harmful effects. Since the Hawthorne Electric studies we have known that there are conditional effects on people. DBTs are very artificial or not isomorphic to reality. As such you cannot generalize to other circumstances, but here we are merely dealing with whether someone is willing to put money into a product. Some will and some will not. If very few buy the CLC, it will die. If many like what they buy and convince others, it will prosper. Hopefully most will not broadly accept the DBT results. |
Rcprince, heard a difference or heard an improvement? |
Rcprince, is there a lingering presence of the CLC? How did you deal with this? As I understand it, this was why there was no demonstration at CES. I had hoped there would be. |
As in the PFO article, I found Dave Clark's statements pretty straight-forward and candid. If you don't believe their experience, try it yourself. This is where I am presently. One thing that is disturbing about his further comments here is that he found no benefit from the Brilliant Pebbles nor the Intelligent Chip. Everyone that I know who has tried the IC finds it to give rather substantial benefits and I agree. The experience with the Pebbles is more limited and I never heard a demonstration of them. Two of us who have tried them have found a definite but subtle improvement with two of them in the corners behind our speakers.
If Clark found no benefit from BP and IC, but great benefit from CLC and my experience with the BP and IC is positive will I find none from CLC? I know, I know, try it and see. |
Mockery will get Guido about as far as his insistence on a personal explanation of how things work. |
Phd, I think the purpose is just the opposite of what you post. It is to subvert the discussion of the CLC. |
Tvad, I noticed that your other quest, the Nespa thread, shows you have failed there also. |
Tvad, one of the things that has always struck me is the difference between Audiogon and AudioAsylum. On AudioAsylum most controversies swiftly get to the next page and out of view. Here as long as anyone posts controversies stay on and on. I also think trolling is more common on AudioAsylum as old topics swiftly go out of sight so you can start another.
Many of the worst posters, but certainly not all, post exclusively on AA and not here, but also some of the most informed post exclusively there also. |
Zaikesman, your last point, "I'd have to give a shit," is exactly the point of those suggesting that the CLC should be tried, especially given some reviews that suggest it works. We don't really give a shit that some demand an explanation, if we hear an improvement.
I have tried several tweaks that did not have very good explanations, notably the Bybee filters and various cd mats, that proved of no benefit, but I have tried others that did, such as the IC, which I heard demonstrated at CES and the Muratas also demonstrated at CES, that proved excellent. None of these have been in experiments where statistical significance was assessed. It matters not to me if I hear a difference.
I teach research methods and find the question of whether a random sample's sampling error could have accounted for the variation noted to be trivial, especially as anything will be statistically significant if the sample size is large. |
Zaikesman and Tonnesen, as you know, tests of statistical significance are sensitive to how big the sample is. With a sample of 25,000, any relationship will prove statistically significant. Since we are all too willing to say that a relationship that is statistically significant is also significant, we are in danger of saying as you think I am saying that you can prove anything with statistical significance tests. These tests were developed to answer the simple question of whether an unusual random sample from a population where there was no difference could have given us sample results where there is a difference.
In the tests that you both propose as to whether subject hear or don't hear the CLC is present, a large sample of say 10,000 would achieve statistical significance even were there no difference, although I would not predict in which direction, such as whether the CLS helped or hurt.
I am not being anti-science or anti-logic, I am merely saying that such tests may not be a valid method to prove or disprove whether the CLC does anything. I am also saying that those who claim it does nothing cannot claim the high ground by saying that those hearing a difference are delusional as those hearing no difference may also be affected by prior conceptions. |
Tonnesen, you are actually arguing against statistical significance but are right. If you get a very large random sample of people, there will be statistically significant differences heard between with and without the CLC. But you are wrong that 10 subjects should be enough to convince people that the device has no effect. If you had 10 non-randomly chosen individuals with "good ears'" you might well question whether their hearing a difference can be generalized to all listeners. Similarly, were you to have 10 who doubt the benefit, others might well legitimately question your findings. Even with 10 randomly chosen individuals much would depend on the strength of the treatment effect.
I am not arguing that one should not attempt such tests, but I am arguing that they may not necessitate others heeding them as proof that the CLC does nothing. |
Joeylawn36111, Audioari1, and Albert, I could not agree more. This is why I suggested that such present or not present tests may not validly assess whether the CLC is working or not.
Zaikesman, you are assuming that no one can hear a difference, but I am assuming that some can hear a difference. Certainly, some do say they hear a difference. With a small sample where some hear a difference, as I see it, you will not be able to dismiss the issue of whether your sample is unusual but comes from a population that cannot hear a difference. With a larger sample again where some hear a difference, it will be very improbable that the population cannot hear a difference. Statistical significance would make it more difficult to support your position. I am sorry if these ideas are difficult to convey, but they are the basis statistical significance and dealing with type one errors.
Given what I say above, a small sample with some hearing a difference could be dismissed as sampling error. A large sample would, however, lead to the conclusion that people in general can hear a difference.
Remember also that you think that there is no difference with the CLC present or absent, but you are only testing whether people can hear a difference. Even if they don't hear a difference, there may be one, or if they do hear a difference, there may be none. Unlike a coin where all would agree on heads and tails, this probably would not be the case in what you propose.
Overall, again I would state that your proposed tests do not resolve the issue. |
Sherod, from its conception this thread has not been to discuss the CLC but rather to dismiss it. There is considerable more heat than light generated here. As a reading of the thread will also show, the principles involved would dearly wish it would die.
Just looking at those that have sold on auction, there must be many out there with personal experience with it, but few would tolerate the sarcasm that Wellfed has endured here. |
|
