Eldartford, you could not be more misguided my friend. If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that the CLC *attracts* UFOs. How else do you account for those user testimonials if not alien abduction?
BTW, I hear the company is going to be coming out with a version specially engineered for the single-ended-triode, horns'n'vinyl crowd, the "Clever Little Sundial"...
Trelja: I'm in! You and me buddy, The Original Audiophile Genuine Snake Oil Company, let's go! Just dab a little around your system and behind the ears! (Not responsible for consequences when used by audiophiles having a pet mongoose. Not available in Ireland.) |
Joe: Don't you dare touch that rocky soil of yours! I'm completely dependent on its being exactly where it is, undisturbed and having absolutely no relation or interaction with my system in the least -- otherwise my sound will just totally fall apart (especially if you ever put a jar of it inside your car). Sorry to impose upon you this way, but I know you'll understand and do what's best for your fellow audiophile. My check for $199 is in the mail. Others should follow suit if they want this hobby to survive. Bless you. (Call me from the yacht sometime!) |
Joe: Dig up your yard at will, I've cancelled that check and put two photos in my freezer, sorry guy! |
Audioari1: Sorry, but you'll pardon me if I have to assume you define "certain level of seriousness" the same way you defined "plausible" above. But, I do have to hand it to you -- only somebody capable of granting credulity in this matter could possibly read through this thread and then write your last sentence...LOL ;^) |
Arggg...no worse killjoy than having to explain one's wise-ass comments, but you seem like a nice guy Audioari1. I'm just undecided about how sincere you are, because I assume your posts are totally on the level, which makes me question whether your threadhead was really a troll.
Regardless, you asked for it, you got it: Above you said you found the manufacturer's explanations "plausible". Then you equated this mysterious principle with the photos-in-the-freezer experiment, which you correctly described as seeming "ridiculous", "crazy" and "silly" -- not exactly synonyms of "plausible". Ergo, when you call for "seriousness", who knows?, you might actually be calling for jollity and snarkiness.
Anyway, I'm dead serious in my message, I'm just choosing not to write that way because the subject doesn't deserve it, and besides this way is more fun. In addition (oh the tedium, but we're almost done), you fail to notice that it's a little late in the day and therefore unintentionally funny to call for "wise-ass comments" to be kept to a "minimum" when they already comprise at least half the thread -- my inference being that this is evidence of someone having their head in the sand with rose-colored glasses on (to mix a metaphor and leave a participle dangling all at once), and not coincidentally that's exactly what's required to give any credence to frauds like the CLC and the nonsense "behind" it to begin with. Hope that helped... |
Well, how many blonde woman audiophiles do you know? Actually, not only was the blonde an audiophile and a man, he was the same man -- unfortunately though, he wasn't carrying his CLC on his person, and therefore experienced some temporal dislocation which resulted in his walking into the building a second time... |
Is it better for one to not be sarcastic, or to not make any sense? I'll stay with those who are both sarcastic *and* make sense over those who are totally sincere and make no sense at all...However Audioari1, unlike Wellfed I suspect, it's now quite clear, seeing as your last post is irreconcilable with the question you posed at the top, that you were *not* being sincere in asking it, so therefore this is a troll: Insincerity + making no sense = a fraud. Had my fun, I'm outta here. |
Wellfed: You (and you alone) are welcome to email me if you'd care to have a friendly and open discussion about why I say the CLC is a fraud (contrasted with, if you like, why I don't believe power cords necessarily are, though I won't always defend their price/performance ratio or even the science supposedly behind them in many cases). I didn't use the word "fraud" with the intent to upset anyone, it was just a statement of fact as I see it. (In case you're wondering about my esteem for the manufacturer's sensitivities in this matter, since he knows exactly what he's doing, he therefore won't find it upsetting that I or anybody else should state it plainly, and indeed he's savvy enough to have remained silent on that point, so I wouldn't worry about him. If there's one thing he knows, it's how his bread is buttered -- including by this thread.) My aim would not be to persuade you that you are wrong, or "a sucker" (we're all suckers for something, and besides this entire hobby is largely based around spending silly money to legitimately questionable ends), but only to let you know my reasoning if you're interested, which I feel is sound (though you of course may disagree). Obviously it goes without saying that I haven't "heard" the CLC, but that's probably beside the point, because I doubt that you, as a true believer, would think that I, as an avowed nonbeliever, would be likely to hear a difference if I did "audition" it, or that you would draw any different conclusion about the product if I didn't hear one, and I suspect that's something we can both agree on. So, any discussion/debate with me on this topic would be held on a theoretical and logical plane, not an experiential one. If you don't want to have this talk with me (and I don't particularly fancy having it myself, I'm just willing to), that's fine too, simply don't email me, but I won't have it on this thread. The reason that I'm posting this invitation on the thread, rather than emailing it to you directly, is because you continue to publicly bring up my use of the word "fraud", and I want any readers who may question my having done so to know that A) my choice of language was deliberate and precise, and B) despite the tangent it sent you off on, there is zero legalistic implication to my having used it (as I can assure you the manufacturer well understands), it is simply my considered opinion. |
"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"
Game, set, match, Pabelson! Tbg: Please, tell us you don't really...Aw hell, I'm joining you under the bridge Newbee, I need to catch my breath from ROTFLMAO -- at least you're right, this thread is gettin' good again... |
Hee hee! The second blonde was an audiophile ;^) |
Thanks guys for proving the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" false and sticking up for science in your own, albeit quite unintended way! One of those serendipitous moments when it actually seems a shame that by the time we're able to handle reality as a species, we won't exist anymore... |
Gee, not that I've read THGTTG, but I thought I sounded more like Chicken Little... |
Hmmm...humor's becoming rather 'smelly' of late, maybe that gong was indicative of an expiration date's being passed... Here's something funnier, Mr. Kait's "definitive explanation" for how the "Intelligent Chip" is supposed to work. After wading through all the pseudo-quantum gobbledygook (not an easy task, since it seems to have been written mainly with confusion and obfuscation in mind), it basically boils down to the assertion -- rather mundane in fact, were the alleged vector of causation not so fantabulous -- that placing the I.C. atop a player spinning a CD for 2 seconds will clarify the optical properties of the disc's polycarbonate layers and thereby "improve" its sound, forever. Naturally, no actual evidence is offered in support of what ought to be an eminently measurable phenomenon -- if it existed -- and so far as I could tell, the argument presented neglects to actually specify, despite its length, exactly how the means described is supposed to alter the polycarbonate for the better (among other logical flaws). After you've attempted to digest this nonsense, I suggest following one of the links Mr. Kait has conveniently listed at the bottom and read the Wired Magazine article for an interesting and cleansing chaser (coincidentally enough, it contains a metaphor comparing one of the discussed technologies to CDs superceding vinyl records). Now, I'm no quantum physicist (and neither is Mr. Kait, with his claimed undergrad engineering degree), so I'm not going to pretend to qualify his rambling, cobbled-together "theory", but it did occur to me that some of the technical articles referenced contain email addresses, and I could write to some of the scientists whose work is cited and see if they might agree to check out the article and offer their expert opinions on the validity of Mr. Kait's expropriations... |
|
Invasion Of The Damned Stepford Audiophiles... |
|
|
Actually Guidocorona, the alleged 'explanation' offered by Mr. Kait for how the Chip is supposed to work is essentially mechanistic with 'quantum' invocations, and not apparently related to the Beltian 'theories' (such as they are) purportedly behind the Clock -- except for of course the literally incredible nature of both. Which I'm sure matters not a whit, since each device is no doubt exactly what it appears to be and nothing more. |
Seems Mrs. PWB, May Belt, is already steps ahead of currs like me: "Yes, I know what you mean about the 'strands' in some of the discussion groups. The 'non-thinkers' react at being asked to 'think' by mockery, ridicule and insults. Intelligent people are then reluctant to 'put their heads above the parapet' because no one likes being mocked, ridiculed and insulted - so the 'non-thinkers' win !!! and nothing progresses forward. Even when a sensible, intelligent discussion is started, the 'ridiculers' take over and the sensible ones retire and the 'ridiculers' win again!!" See? Accept what the Belts put forth, you're sensible and intelligent. Take exception and you're a "non-thinker". Ouch, that really adversely affected my energy patterns. Check out the PWB price list with links to product descriptions -- I quite like the "Quantum Clip", an alligator clip with a short wire hanging off the end that has a nut on it, and sells for $875. Think I'll get two, one for each nipple. |
Well Tbg, I think we can safely assume, not within *your* understanding of known physics, to judge by your take on the effects of gravity on weighty planets and such. But don't feel alone, the CLC etc. doesn't fall within *anybody's* (including Mr. Kait's) understanding of physics, known or unknown. This device, like a great many other things in this world, works on deception (both of the self and by others) and belief. To me, belief is the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge. For skeptics like myself, the CLC would merely function as a 20X-overpriced travel alarm, fully explainable by the known principles of physics, psychology and irrational economics. |
I did email one of the scientists whose work was cited by Mr. Kait in the M.D. article on how he purports the "Intelligent Chip" may work, but so far no response, which although slightly disappointing, does not exactly surprise me. Maybe I will try again with another name from his citation list. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Kait has offered no equivalent explanation for how the CLC is supposed to work, so presumably there is no paper, scholarly or otherwise, to submit for the time being... |
Joeylawn and Guido: I don't believe Mr. Belt's hypotheses can be peer-reviewed for the most part, any more than the existence of a God can be. This is a 'benefit' to going beyond the known and even the unknown, into the unknowable. Mr. Belt would for practical purposes appear to be a mystic philosopher at best, a charlatan at worst -- not a scientist (he certainly offers no evidence for his claims invoking evolution) -- and not a persuasive, challenging, interesting or enlightening philosopher at that IMO. But that's a personal aesthetic and moral judgement, and to me the realm of audiophilia seems a suitably trivial and bogus arena in which to apply such cheap postulating, whether he actually believes any of it himself or not.
Perhaps more fundamentally, everything I've read on his site so far (all written by May, FWIW) has been far too vague and/or meaningless, and riddled with semantic and/or logical flaws in the reasoning given, for anyone to devise testable predictions based on the 'arguments' presented. Mr. Sheldrake may be more formal with his propositions, and his site does seem to indicate some serious debate and dissent which could flow from testable hypotheses, but I haven't had the chance yet to read any of it beyond the headlines. I'd be a bit curious to know whether and what Mr. Sheldrake might think of Mr. Belt's extrapolations allegedly 'based' on his 'theory' of "Morphic Resonance" (which to me sounds blandly like "The Force" of Star Wars fame, not that such ideas began there). I wouldn't be half surprised if Sheldrake found Belt's nonsensical shtick as incorrect and dishonest as I do, even if for quite different reasons... |
Tbg: I think you misunderstand my little analogy about medical trials. My point isn't that placebos can't have any effects, good or bad, that suggestion primes subjects to experience. My point is that only a real medicine can have unintended real effects, and that in fact this can be observed to almost univerally be the case when transposed to the audio realm. All audio devices or treatments having some plausible method of action are obviously intended and claimed to make the sound 'better' in some way(s), but will actually be reported by various users to show effects other than those which the manufacturer intended or claims. The trend we observe with the CLC so far doesn't seem to conform to this pervasively common and expected pattern, and we can reasonably surmise why.
I don't know why you bring up double-blind testing (DBT), since I never did, but just for the record: I agree that blind testing in audio can be of limited value, even misleading under certain circumstances, though I'm not against it so long as its limitations are acknowledged (which its most zealous proponents typically fail to do). In particular I feel that the ABX methodology (whether single-blind or double-blind) has the strong potential to actually be obscuring, rather than enlightening as presumed, in attempting to establish reliable minimum thresholds for the perceiving of subtle sonic differences, often tending to underreport the existence or significance of such differences. Blind testing is however the only way to rule out the placebo effect, which very often biases sighted tests in the other direction, so it certainly has its place in the scientific sense, no matter how procedurally less than pleasant or logistically troublesome it may be to really get done for the casual audiophile at home.
Personally though, my own opinion is that there's a slightly different way in which sighted testing tends to corrupt results in audiophile trials, at least as much or even more so than simply causing differences to be reported where perhaps there really aren't any. (And here I'm talking about products that could conceivably cause any differences without resort to invoking magic -- not the CLC.) This is when differences are reasonably and honestly heard and can be repeatably identified to a good degree of certainty, but the characterization of whether those differences are on the whole good or bad, and how significant they add up to be, can become unduly influenced by our preconceived notions about the products we are testing.
For instance, when a less-expensive (or less-'prestigious') component is tested against a more-expensive (or more-'prestigious') component, real enough differences may be heard -- independent of any placebo effect, since after all the two components really are different -- but which component we assume the difference is in favor of, I believe often gets undesirably affected by our quite undertandable (though possibly unstated, or even subconscious) preconception that the more expensive/prestigious component 'must' be the more 'correct' or 'better' sounding of the two, where we may not possess as good an intrinsic idea of how 'correct' or 'better' might actually sound as we'd like to believe.
I suspect this phenomenon is common to the point of being the norm, and tough to avoid in evaluating gear no matter how honest we're trying to be with ourselves. Even vast experience could sometimes serve to reinforce the foible rather than counteract it. Fortunately though, since the audio game is largely about subjectively pleasing oneself -- and besides which we can never achieve anything close to total 'correctness' -- objectively 'scientific' accuracy in these assessments ain't necessarily the factor to value most highly, though I myself am no way in favor of simply disregarding it, as best as it can be determined. |
Geoffkait's story is very conveneint, but Mrs. Clark's 'reviewing' skills are just as suspect if this story is true as if it isn't. Either she told a big enough fiction, or made a big enough mistake, in her original presentation, that her (or her husband's, or Mr. Kait's) attempts to redress it after the fact are too little, too late to help with her credibility.
As I wrote on 2/12, and Tonnesen mentions again above, no attentive reader could fail to notice this central flaw in Mrs. Clark's article. Furthermore (and again as I pointed out on 2/12 in this thread), *even if* the revisionist history Mr. Kait presents above were indeed the case, *it is still* logically contradicted by Mrs. Clark's previous reviews of Beltian products published earlier in PFO.
Yes, Mr. Kait could trot out the "she had gotten used to a higher standard" argument to explain why a system which Mrs. Clark had previously declared just fine, replete with many Beltian tweaks, was now felt to sound practically unbearable without the Clock in comparison, but if he does, let me ask: Since he says the Clock is based on PWB technology, and Mrs. Clark had already treated her system (and/or herself) extensively with such, why should Mr. Kait's product be making much of a difference at all, let alone a crucial, night and day difference?
Or, for that matter: Considering how teed-off Mr. Kait seemed to get at Audioari1 in this thread for 'revealing' their conversation held in 'confidence', we must assume Audioari1 was reporting essentially accurately when he said Mr. Kait maintains that the Clock is a 'time machine' that somehow 'reduces the gap' between playback reproduction and the original performance. Leaving aside for the moment, not only how completely ridiculous such an assertion would be, but also the many other naturally astounding implications which should logically flow from such a phenomenon were it true -- yet go mysteriously unaddressed in favor of merely claiming that the Clock makes a stereo system sound 'better' -- then why is it that two Clocks should effect any more improvement than one? Or, if that were true, why three work no better than two?
There's a far simpler explanation that makes a lot more sense: Mrs. Clark and Mr. Kait et al, are either cranks or liars, or both (but since money is involved, chances are against them being purely cranks). Yeah yeah, I know -- so before someone throws it back at me: But what about all the users we've heard from who, it would seem, back up (in very non-specific ways) Clark's and Kait's claims? Am I saying they're all cranks too? Why would any of *them* lie, assuming there's nothing in it for them monetarily?
Fair question -- to which I would respond with another: Has no one else noticed that, as this thread (and the other one I've read on Audiogon) has gone along, there have been, to the best of my recollection, no users of the Clock who have claimed anything other than neutral or positive effects? This is rather remarkable in itself, and surely not without meaning.
It seems to me that any other 'product' which gets written about by users as extensively as the Clock has been -- be it a component or 'tweak', but in the conventional sense (i.e., no matter how 'controversial' they may be, most products carry *some* at least faintly plausible method of causation for having an effect on perceived sound, however minor) -- develops its adherents, *as well* as those who tried it but didn't care for the way it sounded. Cables, power conditioners, equipment supports, room acoustics devices, esoteric 'treatments' for gear or media -- you name it, no matter how 'tweaky' or 'out there', if more than a few people have tried it, you'll almost certainly find a mixture of those who loved it, those who thought it didn't make any difference (or a difference so minor and random it wasn't worth the money/time), *and* those who tried it and thought it made a difference for the worse (or didn't care for how it sounded in their system but could think of how it might help in others, or didn't prefer it on a lot of their music but could see how it might sound good on other types of music, or found it a mixed bag with some pros and some cons, etc.).
Not the case, it would appear, with the Clock. So, we must ask ourselves: Why is it that a product -- a product which just so happens, unlike the vast majority of others, to have no plausible method of causation apparent or even claimed by its manufacturer -- would only be reported to be beneficial or else to have no effects? Where are all the tweakers who tried it and thought it sounded worse, or heard what it did but decided it wasn't for them, or thought it was OK but not worth the dough? The obvious -- and to me it seems only -- answer is that it's because said product *isn't actually doing anything*.
This is how placebos work, folks -- they don't have unintended real effects, because they're inert. In a clinical trial of a medicine intended to treat headaches, it will not be found that the control group who took the placebo were unintentionally caused to get heart attacks at a higher rate, though it might in the group that was given the real medicine. So it is too with audio -- if a product, that reason seems to dictate could have no possible real interaction with the system, room, software or listener, is reported to have only positive or neutral effects but never any negative or unworthwhile ones, than we can consider that a strong indicator that the product indeed does not have any such real interactions, and that the most plausible explanation is that its effects fall under the placebo catagory. |
Or to put it metaphorically, of all the loyal subjects who claimed they saw the Emperor's New Clothes, how many thought them unstylish? |
Russ: Thanks for reminding us of that fact, I must have forgotten it because I did read that thread several days ago. I think you are correct however in assuming that the anecdote doesn't really contradict my argument on this point, because the test subjects were informed what it was they were auditioning, and a combination of lucky guesses and a predisposition to 'dislike' the Clock for whatever reason could have resulted in the observed response from this individual, which of course must be taken as just a part of the much greater number of subjects who couldn't demonstrate that they heard anything and/or claimed they couldn't as well. I think longer-term trials by people actually laying down their own money for the Clock would be more reliable at indicating whether unintended real effects were a strong possibility, same as with any other gear, and so far I've seen none reported by that group.
BTW, I agree very much (in principle -- in reality, I can't say that I really care! :-) with your idea of doing the next trial without announcing what's being tested, or maybe even that there's a test taking place. Another good idea from my perspective would be to conduct that exact same test as you did the first time, except under false pretenses with no Clock actually present at all. Then I think the best wrap-up would be to do a fully-sighted test with the Clock being in play. |
Yep Tom, "Orgonomy" is crackpotism, so I'm a book-burnin' wire-tappin', false-imprisoner. I don't go for astrology or crop circles either, and I step on cracks in the sidewalk -- hell, I don't even play the lottery -- just call me a megalomaniacal facsist! |
Oh yes, but of course. Guido, could you please do me a favor and reunite your pet foodstuffs again? |
|
I was reading Roger Wilcox's articles debunking "orgone energy" and "accumulators" (aka "orgone boxes", linked from the SkepDic entry I linked above), and musing about the similarities between Reich's crackpot theory and Belt's (child-like fixations on attributing magical properties to simple phenomena such as temperature gradients, and a penchant for imbuing the whole universe as well as living beings with extrascientific "fields" carrying beneficial metaphysical properties -- in addition to failing to constuct relevent experiments for testing their theories). Continuing to follow links however, I then arrived at the fun site for the American Stirling Company -- that model MM-7, now *there's* a gadget I'd put on top of my CD player! I'm sure it would defeat the "Intelligent Chip" plus an entire raft of Belt's Rainbow Foils in a fair fight (I recommend their FAQ too). |
Russ, you're a starship trooper my man... |
Selected tools of the determined huckster:
1) Claim you're misunderstood
2) Claim there's an agenda against you
3) Claim there's an agenda against "new knowledge" or "poorly understood phenomena"
4) Claim outside forces would "rip you off" if given the chance
5) Draw incorrect parallels between what you do and historical examples where the advancement of science was inhibited by entrenched interests
6) Claim that your skeptics "are not ready" for your brand of knowledge, but will one day "see the light"
7) Utilize diversionary tactics and vague language to try and disguise the faulty logic of your false sylogisms, false premises, nonsensical semantics, non-sequitors, and general resort to unproven, "faith-based" assertions
8) Utilize anecdotal testimony to try and disguise your lack of demonstrable evidence
9) Selectively ignore the weight of more rigorous, as well as anecdotal, evidence running counter to your claims
10) Play to your audience's ignorance, desires and fears
11) Hope they don't wise up by "following the money"
12) And when all else fails, resort to rendering your inferences non-disprovable by making your specific claims "secret" (citing #'s 1-6 as reasons why) |
Anecdotal is anecdotal, good bad or indifferent. It's not necessarily a pejorative characterization, but neither is anecdotal testimony (especially when selectively presented) a substitute for plausible explanations, care and scrutiny in auditioning practices, and measurable performance. Likewise, words such as "paranormal", "supernatural", and "metaphysical" have dictionary meanings which are not pejorative, just literally descriptive and appropriately applicable to certain identifiable catagories of reported phenomena. As for "claims" that are "touted" vs. "facts" that are "stated", the latter are usually not in dispute -- isn't it up to the purporters of the "unorthodox" to show how they build upon the known facts, and add their evidence for any new ones, in order to convince us of the possibilities in their claims? Conversely, does it not matter if error or illogic can be demonstrated in the reasoning given for those claims? And should we not doubt fantastic claims if no evidence is given at all?
I've learned not to put too much stock in what other audiophiles unknown to me say or their opinions, and ditto reviewers. Audiophiles these days, at least from the written evidence I see, too often suffer from what I call 'audio machismo': Confidently proclaiming to easily perceive differences of the sub-molehill variety -- regardless of how compromised and/or casual the audition circumstances -- while simultaneously exagerating them into mountains of importance. In this competitive and conspicuously-consuming pursuit, demanding any modicum of auditioning rigor, or of modesty in claims made or significance assigned, runs the danger of being taken as indicating self-doubt and tin ears, auto-disqualifiers from membership in the high-end club. It's an environment I fundamentally mistrust.
Does this mean I don't accept that some people using the CLC believe they hear a positive difference? No. But it does mean I'd take any bet that neither Mr. Kait nor his satisfied customers would ever be able to reliably distinguish his "specially treated" Clocks from outwardly-identical ones fresh from Mall-Wart, even given sighted comparison auditioning in their own systems, unhurried and unobserved. (Only conditions: A number of trials rising to statistical significance, and some way to make sure there couldn't be any cheating. And oh yeah, I'd have to actually give a shit ;^) |
I know from experience that neither one of us will have a change of heart as a result of these discussions I couldn't agree more with that... so I see no point in risking alienation with continued debate ...maybe not so much with this, but I concede the possibility. I'm not trying to change your mind, believe it or not. And as far as I'm concerned you don't risk alienating me, though I can't know about me alienating you. (Not, of course, that this discussion has just been between you and me.) But I can understand getting tired of it. And if you're happy with your CLC's, why risk lousing it up by doing the test I proposed? Or subject yourself to a lot of flack? Same as me not wanting to waste my time and money "auditioning" the Clock when I'm certain in advance I won't hear any difference. As much as any intellectual criticism though, I'd just feel unbearably *silly* actually "testing" something along these lines. As you know, the only reason I ever came on this thread was to poke fun. Not necessarily at you, but at the product you like, which is dangerously close to the same thing I admit. Then I went away. Then the humor kind of ceased to be funny any more, and serious points were raised (in theory, if maybe not in reality when it comes to something as frivolous as high end audio), so I got serious for a change of pace. There's only so far it can be taken without repeating oneself. I actually have about half of a lengthy response to Dave Clark composed and waiting, but I haven't had the heart to carry through with it. It's not that I'm at a loss for something relevent to say, it's just that I think, is it really necessary to continue blabbering on about this stuff? Maybe so, I'm still thinking about it. I take more seriously what I see as lazy work of published writers like the Clarks and irresponsible claims of manufacturers like Kait than the whims of the audiophiles whose money they take...and then again, I don't really care about anybody but myself in these trivial matters of caveat emptor and different strokes... |
Tgb: Like Tonnesen, I don't know what you intend by that quote (it almost sounds like you're saying "statistics can prove anything"). We're only saying that A) you can't roll dice once or twice and learn how "lucky" you are, and B) tests need certain controls, like isolating variables and accounting for possible biasing effects, if we're not to be misled. You teach research methodology, you've got to know this better than me.
Anyway, I agree that you don't necessarily need an explanation if you perceive a positive difference; we just differ in our levels of satisfaction with not having a plausible explanation (or, having an implausible one), and in what we conclude from that about what's likely to be really going on. As I just posted on the other thread, most of the other tweaks you mention (filters, CD mats, even a plug-in clock) possibly have plausible methods of causation that could account for any perceived effects. It's the ones that don't (the CLC, the "Intelligent Chip") which demand the most skeptical scrutiny. You may not feel the same, but I'm curious to know how anything works, including in my system.
I also agree with the criticisms (from more than one direction) that overall, what we're trying to do is listen to and enjoy music (and maybe gear as well), not run "scientific experiments". However, some of us feel it is quite possible -- and important -- to find both truth in beauty *and* beauty in truth. |
|
Tbg, I'm afraid I hope you're more clear (and relevant, I dare say) with your students... From what I can tell though, you've got at least one thing basically wrong there: "I am merely saying that such tests may not be a valid method to prove or disprove whether the CLC does anything" To me this isn't correct. If enough trials are run, with the clock randomly inserted or removed from the listening environment without the subject seeing which condition it is (I think at least 30 trials would be preferable, which could be divided between 2 or 3 different sessions on different days), its absence or presence should be correctly reported at a rate significantly higher than just 50/50 chance if it's actually doing anything like what the believers maintain. If on the other hand the results hewed pretty close an even 50/50 split, it would be strongly indicative that nothing is audible. This is a different question than whether whatever the clock may do is 'good' or 'bad', which is a subjective judgement, and not important as to whether the thing can be *detected*. For illustration, I just flipped a coin 30 times, twice. The first set of 30 I got a 17/13 split, the second set a 16/14 split. Whether the splits favored heads or tails is unimportant (as it happens, it was one of each), the relevant point is that my splits only deviated from the mean of 15 by 1 or 2, strongly indicating random outcomes. |
Oh, you're talking about random choosing of listeners? I don't think this is necessary, or even desirable. I'd rather limit the listener pool to audiophiles who believe in the audibility of these tweaks. |
Miklorsmith: I agree (and have detailed before) that there can be problems with formal testing methodologies as applied to subjective auditioning. I do think some kinds of testing can introduce a "confusion factor" that may actually serve to artificially raise the floor for perceivability of low-level differences. And I think it's to a large extent possible to ameliorate biasing effects due to external factors without resorting to blind tests, though it can take repetition over time and a certain self-questioning mindset (that I'm learning a lot of audiophiles seem to lack). As for how test conditions might significantly differ from normal use conditions, this can be good or bad -- I don't listen to music for enjoyment by performing rapid A/B comparisons, but doing them can really help nail down (or dismiss) some elusive observations concerning gear.
But, when faced with a product or claim that appears to carry all the hallmarks of snakeoil, and audiophiles buying into it using the most casual and fallible auditioning methods, I don't think it's inappropriate to call for some demonstrable degree of rigor to be brought to bear. I also think that experiences like the one you relate above are valuable for putting things in proper perspective every once in a while. |
Again, I don't disagree with the point everybody makes about auditioning and testing. But I still say an experience like the one Audioari1 relates about the $10K preamp vs. the $200 one -- if true and valid (meaning if this actually happened, and if the test was done well) -- is a valuable reminder to any audiophile about not just the limitations of A/B testing (which I think audiophiles sometime tend to overblow, while ignoring the equally significant foibles of long-term auditioning), but also the quite real limitations of what we're actually doing in high end audio.
But I'm getting a little off the track here. There is most definitely a way to test the CLC that doesn't raise the possibility of criticisms like you guys are mentioning (and I already thumbnailed it somewhere here before). All you would need are, say, three outwardly-identical clocks: One would be an actual CLC, with its supposed "proprietary technology" and "special" batteries, while the other two would be the same model of clock, unmodified except for having identical stickers placed on their fronts as the CLC, and with "regular" (but same brand) batteries. The test administrator would need to have some kind of identifying mark to reference the CLC; I'd suggest maybe tiny pieces of tape placed inside the battery compartments of the two stock clocks only.
Then simply leave all three clocks with an audiophile who maintains he can hear a positive effect from the CLC, to audition however he pleases, at his leisure (with the understanding of course that he wouldn't try to open up the clocks or otherwise try figure out which is which through non-auditory means, and the proviso that he removes the two clocks not currently being auditioned from the listening environment in accordance with Machina Dynamica's guidelines). When he's finished and indicated his preference, the administrator would remove the three clocks and note which one he chose, then bring them back mixed-up and do the same thing over again (without, of course, letting the subject know the running results while the test is still in progress).
If, after maybe 10 times around with this routine, the subject couldn't correctly identify the CLC significantly more frequently than 1/3 of the time, I don't think that audiophile could argue about its lack of audible effect. And if he could identify it reliably (and hadn't cheated), no one could argue that it's probably really doing something after all. (I think the single best candidate to run this test with would be Mr. Kait, were it not for the fact that he would have an infinite incentive to cheat, and the means to easily do so!)
I'm not advocating going through this kind of crap for every choice an audiophile makes (I've stated above why the CLC [and "Intelligent Chip"] deserve a higher level of skeptical scrutiny), I'm just saying that in principle it's hard to criticize or dismiss this test (or at least, in the case of negative results only, as it could apply to that one listener). And yes, I've stipulated before that this whole debate is likely nothing but great for Mr. Kait's business -- while it lasts (meaning the business, and the debate! ;^) |
And BTW, about that preamp shootout, I once lassoed my girlfriend into doing the same kind of blind test. She's not an audiophile and couldn't care less, but she was easily able to immediately and consistently discern at least some of the sonic differences between the $3K and $6.5K solid-state preamps I was A/B-ing (volume-matched, of course). To my slight chagrin she preferred the former even though I preferred the latter (not that I told her so until we were done, although it's possible she could've picked it up from my body language since the test wasn't double-blind). But I did agree 100% with her descriptive assessment of what she heard, and could see why she might've preferred it with those particular test recordings. In fact, she blew me away by stating the overall situation much more congently and concisely than I had been able to form it in my own mind. When I told her why I liked the more expensive one, she blithely dropped something like, oh sure, she could tell that you could hear much more through that one, but that was why she'd found it less pleasant to listen to (I had played CD's). Just amazing, aren't they fellas? |
Puremusic: That might seem a reasonable hypothsis, but I doubt it's actually true -- listening to a piece of music once and then again is not analogous to staring at a static image until it's 'burned' on your retina. Otherwise, if it were, we not only couldn't hear changing sounds such as music very well, we'd have trouble seeing changing images within a constant environment, which as far as I know is exactly the opposite of how we actually respond. Maybe a better analogy would be listening to a static sinewave tone for minutes, although I don't know this. Anyway, I believe the ways the ear and the eye operate as sensors, and how the brain processes each, are too substantially different for such analogies to hold much water. The other problem with that conjecture, for me, is that I personally find A/B testing to more often highlight than to obscure subtle differences. Of course, I'm doing this by myself in my own system, which means it's not blind, so you could always object that I'm fooling myself. |
PM: Thanks for the clarification, but I understood, I just didn't agree. It's your proposed effect, as well as your analogy about mechanism, that seems out of whack with reality to me. Assuming you're seriously positing this hypothesis as a reason why A/B testing allegedly doesn't work or is misleading, than both cause and effect are fair game for critical examination. If you think I'm taking it too far, it's just that I see the possible extrapolation here -- that your proposed effect implies instantaneous comparison is less reliable than audio memory, and I don't buy that.
For the record, here's how I see this A/B vs. long-term question in its totality: A/B's I think are great for identifying differences, and degrees of change. If performed against a well-known reference they can be a good indicator of relative strengths and flaws (or in the case of bypass testing, absolute strengths and flaws). But that's not always the same as determining which presentation you prefer, and it's never the same as determining whether that preference will ultimately meet your listening needs and expectations. Long-term auditioning I think is necessary (and anyway unavoidable, let's not forget) for determining preferences and ultimate satisfaction. I agree that quick A/B's often don't reveal nearly as much as there is to hear. The solution in my experience is not to throw away A/B's altogether, it's to keep doing them until the finer differences emerge, which they do if you have determination and patience. Once heard, as I said, this method most clearly eludicates differences and degrees of change, and more reliably so than depending on long-term auditioning and audio memory. In practice I prefer to use both methods for their own virtues and not just rely on the latter. |
|
PM: Not sure if you're playing devil's advocate when you take exception to my statement about the limitations of "quick" A/B's, but maybe I need to clarify: By "quick" I didn't mean the rapidity of the switching itself -- I'll often focus on rather short musical passages when I compare this way. What I was refering to is the total time invested, and by implication number of musical examples, trials, and sessions employed. I think there's a bit of a perception out there that when we talk about A/B-ing, we're talking about a short-cut, whereas when we talk about long-term auditioning, we're talking about taking our time. My point was that time needs to be invested no matter what if you want to get a worthwhile result. Quality A/B-ing is really harder work than long-term auditioning, but it yields solid results in particular respects. And I don't know about scientific studies, but I do know that oftentimes when I start out A/B-ing something where at first any differences might seem vanishingly subtle at best, perservering almost always shows otherwise. The ear/brain needs time to fully suss things out, and repetition (including on different days) for confirmation. It's nothing but gaining familiarity and weeding out false impressions, and you can't do it in 20 minutes at the hi-fi shop. |
"Mob rule"? More like democracy with freedom of expression -- and criticism. Leaving aside the posts intended to be humorous, what would you change in order to make the discussion "meaningful"? |
Audioari1 -- First, the good news: Let me pay you a backhanded compliment and commend you for no longer *seeming* to post in the manner of a troller as of late, so that I can respond. The bad news: We seem to be talking right past each other, so either you might need to re-read my posts more carefully before responding, or I might need to do a better job of communicating.
About your critique of my proposed three-clock test, I think you miss the point. You must think that it involves comparing any one of the three clocks to no clock at all. That option exists, but isn't relevent to the design of the test. This test is intended only for *advocates* of the Clock, to be a method which allows for personalized, long-term auditioning, thus avoiding the criticisms some have leveled against conventional blind A/B testing. (This test is still blind, but can be self-administered during the auditioning phases.) The observed effects of three clocks would be reported as compared against *each other*, not against the absence of a clock. That they look outwardly identical is fundamental to the test. It is *only* a test to see if anything Machina Dynamica claims for their CLC can be audibly differentiated from a regular clock. (If you want to posit, as Tgun5 does in the other thread, that a regular clock has just as much supposed benefit as a CLC, then this test cannot help in refuting that.)
In case I'm still being hard to follow, let me put it another way, expanding on what you've suggested: Instead of giving me one Boulder with the guts of an NAD inside and asking me what I think of it (thus in all likelihood deomstating the existence of the placebo effect, but nothing about the supposed superiority of Boulders), my test is proposing that you give me three Boulders, two with NAD guts on the inside (plus a little ballast! ;^), and leaving me alone for as long as I want to determine whether I can hear any differences between the three. This is not a test intended to demonstrate the placebo effect -- the existence of which you are of course perfectly correct about, but which is where you got confused here -- it's a test intended to discern whether real audible differences actually exist. By making appearances identical, the placebo effect cancels out, leaving only real effects. We've eliminated the potentially onerous need to make the test "blind" on the outside by making it blind only where it matters, on the inside. So again I say, if you're one of those who think Machina Dynamica is actually selling something of unique value here, something justifying not only its cost but its allegedly proprietary nature, then the test I described in the above post should be able to confirm or refute that notion. (BTW, the choosing of three clocks for the test, as opposed to two or four or whatever number greater than one you care to name, was based solely on test manageability vs. expedience and is irrelevent; what matters is that only one of them be a "real" Clock.)
About the "test" story with my girlfriend and the preamps: A) It wasn't a formal test, just an anecdote that I thought appropriate in light of your preamp shootout story; B) She actually did not know which of the two preamps I was running at any given time, and furthermore did not know which was more expensive, who made what, or even who the makers were. She doesn't even carry any preconceived notions regarding makers anyway, since she's not an audiophile. In fact, I'm not sure she even knew that it was preamps I was testing, or if she could even tell you exactly what a preamp is. I just asked her to come listen to two things while I switched back and forth and for her impressions of what she heard, that's all. But as I said, she could see and hear me, and I can't rule out that I communicated something about my feelings without intending to, so it wasn't a controlled test in that regard. That she preferred the opposite one from me could be taken as an indicator that in fact I didn't influence her, but in any case her personal preferences were of secondary importance to me -- I was more interested in her knowing her subjective characterizations, which while I thought they turned out to closely match my own, she didn't know any of in advance (of course she didn't communicate them in audiophile-speak however!). |
Russ: No!! :-)
Tbg: As you wish. I'll stop discussing, er, I mean dismissing this with you, my light-generating friend! Wow, my head hurts less already... |
