Guys, seriously, can someone please explain to me how the Clever Little Clock (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm) actually imporves the sound inside the litening room?
Wellfed...Since you want to be legalistic, let me remind you that the strictest critera (for criminal conviction) is beyond a REASONABLE doubt. This case is a slam dunk.
I agree somewhat with Charlie101 in that its up to the mfg to provide evidence that the CLC works or at least some rational explanation on how it works. Since that has not occured it is now up to the consumer if they are willing to part with at least two hundred dollars to prove otherwise. Remember, a fool & their money are soon parted and that is precisely what this mfg is relying on.
I wouldn't be so sure that these guys fall under the legal definition of consumer fraud. All they claim is that if you put the clock in your listening room, your system will sound better. And they have testimonials from customers confirming this. That would seem to put them in the clear.
The CLC is a time travel device. It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music.
Let me add, that I am NOT trying to be sarcastic here.
I can't stress this enough; I am NOT being sarcastic.
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.
>The CLC is a time travel device. It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time<
Well Audioaril you'd better tell Kirk and Spock so they don't corrupt the time space continuum when they warp back to the 21st century to check this out. Although if the clock is powered by dilithium crystals, it may prevent any such occurrence. Beam me up Scotty.
But seriously, I wonder if this Mr. Belt's scientific theories have been 'peer-reviewed'. This is the usual standard for validity of scientific claims. If you remember the "Cold Fusion" claims, they could not ever sucessfully be duplicated under the proper and normal scientific tests. So it would help if Mr. (Dr.?)Belt could get his theories Peer-Reviewed.
Elizabeth, the pens I used for that experiment were plain black ballpoints from Staples, their cheapest. Keep them in the box, they work best that way!!
Pabelson, are you sure the testimonials are legitimate? For $200.00 there most be a more verifiable tweak worth buying that will make a significant improvement to ones system. I fear by our very active debate on this thread will spark someones curiosity into purchasing one, thus serving the interests of the company that mfgs this gimick.
The company offers a 30-day in home trial. So there is no possibility of fraud, because if the consumer believes the clock does not improve the sound of their system they can return it for a full refund.
Rcprince, perhaps fountain pens would work better, or felt tip markers. How about #2 pencils or paper clips. Heck, the office supply store could be a gold mine for audiophile tweaks. Forget the clock. Give me the magic pens!
Wellfed...To continue the legal analogy...when there is prima facie evidence against the defendant he is presumed to be guilty unless he presents contrary evidence. In your case being contrary to all laws of science is prima facie evidence.
"The company offers a 30-day in home trial......if the consumer believes the clock does not improve the sound of their system they can return it for a full refund."
As a potential consumer, I'll always place the burden of proof of product efficacy squarely on the shoulders of the MANUFACTURER--period. I refuse to perform an empirical test (at my OWN expense, no less!) on a product with no logically discernible mechanism of action, despite any assertions by the manufacturer about quantum mechanics. Others, including Bigjoe, have expressed similar sentiments. I was willing to test the Dakiom Feedback Stabilizers because they at least presented a plausible explanation of how they might work. (Dakiom also covers return shipping, by the way.)
It's asking a lot for the consumer to make a faith-based internet purchase of a device that doesn't physically connect to the audio circuit; has no discernible mechanism of action; and for which the manufacturer steadfastly refuses to give any real plausible explanation. Also, unlike Dakiom, Machina Dynamica doesn't cover return shipping.
I can't prove that the device doesn't work, but I'm also unwilling to pay my MONEY to get the thing, then spend my TIME and EFFORT testing it to see if it works, then (if it fails) spend my time to package it for return shipping, and my money for the shipping costs. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but my money, time and patience are all limited. Therefore, my answer to that proposition is as follows: NO! -Bill
Bill, you missed my post above. The manufacturer does give an explanation over the phone if you call them, but he will not reveal it in print because the explanation is difficult for some people to accept. Here again is an explanation of how the device works:
The CLC is a time travel device. It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music.
Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events.
Audioaril: Actually, I did not miss your last post, but I simply do NOT find the concept of "time travel" as mechanism of action for a high end audio tweak to be particularly convincing. The claims made, if true, would have profound implications for space travel, etc. Keep in mind that scientists have yet to form a consensus on a unified field theory, and it's probably a long way off. Maybe the manufacturer's claims are true, but I still won't do the test, and I still won't call Geoffkait to seek an explanation for the device's mechanism of action, even if he were to accept charges for a collect call. It's NOT going to happen. -Bill
And quite reasonable too as applied to one's discretion on whether or not to invest time and money on the evaluation of any given product.
Eldartford,
I havn't seen where Zaikesman, or anyone else, has established that the Clever Little Clock runs counter to all laws of science. And for that matter, has science ever truly established itself as the final authority on reality? In real terms it's obvious that it hasn't, in legal termsI wouldn't know. Obviously a standard of some sort must exist in order to warrant judgment, but science? One would also think that any legitimate legal system must have as its requirement, real victims in order to establish fraudulent practice. Since this product carries a money-back guaranty, where could such victims be found?
Each individual human had a fundamental adverse problem imposed on their senses when they had their first photograph taken. A photographic image captures the unique identity of the subject of the photograph but imposes a significant temporal (time) asymmetrical pattern. The action of this photograph radically changed the inner symmetry of the senses of the photographed human being. Fortunately, this debilitating adverse condition is reversible.
Does this mean that a person such as myself, someone who's made their living as a professional photographer for more than 30 years, is guilty of "temporal time distortion" of the personalities I've photographed ?
Does this explain the behavior of people I've photographed, such as Arnold Palmer, Vendula, Peter Frampton, Jimmy Page, George Bush, Little Richard, Bunker Hunt, Dan Marino, Robert Plant, Grace Slick, Kathy Ireland, Joe Cocker, Joe Gibbs, Bobby Labonte, Ross Perot, Jimi Hendrix, Boz Skaggs and Eric Clapton ?
I hope there is no penalty for that! I've probably exposed several hundred thousand images over the span of my career and I don't want the government coming after me for what I though was an otherwise honest business.
I wonder too, all that talk about images in the freezer.
Eastman Kodak suggested (about 50 years ago) that keeping valuable images in the freezer would prevent them degrading. There's a chart that lists the "life" of images at various temperatures posted somewhere, (maybe at the Eastman Kodak web site?) Seems like I remember Kodak negative films good for maybe 20 years at normal room temperature and over 100 years at freezing.
So, question is..........does that make Kodak a co-conspirator? And what about my wedding negatives? They have been in the freezer for nearly three decades................does this explain the "chilling" relationship that's developed between my wife and I over the years?
Last but CERTAINLY not least, should our son (note the photographic terms here) ever "develop" a "negative" relationship with his future mate, could Peter Belt and Eastman Kodak be held accountable (financially) in the alimony settlement?
OK, after following this thread for a couple of days I broke down and purchased the CLC to see for myself if it really works. Of course I used my wifes credit card for the purchase. So let me cut to the chase does it work???? Yes and no. I placed the CLC in my listening room and placed a cd in the tray and began to listen. I did not notice a differnce so I placed another cd in the player and another and another till I worked up a thirst and cracked open a cold one and another and another and yet another and all of the sudden after 8 Buds the music just seemed to come ALIVE. Now I know what your thinking was it the clock or was it the Bud???? Can't say for sure at this point but the clock and the Bud sure did add to my listening experience. Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
some pretty radical "x-files" kinda concepts being espoused here. and one certainly has to recall the reference of the primitive tribe (can't remember where) that claimed that the camera "stole their soul" when their picture was taken. temporal distortions? we're full of 'em (in a spiritual sense) IMHO, and they are what keeps us from being *truly* in the present moment and thus enjoying our music to the fullest (among other things, simple enjoyment of music being far from the highest benefit of such a thing). what i find interesting is the search for some external "thing" (cheap clock with a dot, bag of whatever in the freezer, ritual involving photographs) to remedy this. *this* is a phenomenon of temporal existence, which is of course ultimately a product of the mind. if you can accept the possibility that time is an illusion (ok, ok, get out your butterfly nets for me too but at least *think* about it--the reconciliation of metaphysics and quantum physics is well underway, ever since einstein), then you may realize that reconciliation of these things is not at all an external process but an *internal* one. want proof? the only proof is in the doing. can i prove that these devices etc. have no effect in this manner? no, but i can reasonably infer that IF there is *any* effect it is fleeting and small (relatively speaking). have any of you ever had the experience of a piece of music literally "taking you away" and you imagine yourself there in the venue, and this was not a subtle sensation? this has happened for me, not often but a few times, and i suspect that it has for others as well. in that moment you literally transcended time. time didn't matter, you didn't feel the need to look at a clock, let alone have one in the room to assist you in this phenomenon, and you probably didn't even plan on it happening. it just did. and it will again, if you allow it to. and the notion that this somehow begins with and is attributed to photography is just plain silly IMHO--it's roots are way beyond such a thing. the earliest photographs of me are of a cute kid (obvious bias), but also of a person who, in a very real sense, no longer exists (or rather, no longer *needs* to exist). ok, get your pitchforks and torches, i'll be waiting at the house.....:-)
Common man, I am trying to help you here. I think that the CLC is a fascinating device. I thought that I would offer audiophiles a glimpse into the explanation. Notice, I did not provide the complete explanation. With all this talk about the CLC you should have a bunch of orders.
I think people here think I am being sarcastic, but I am completely serious. Plus I think that time effect that we discussed is entirely possible. People here should read Steven Hawkin's Brief History of Time.
In fact, I would venture to say that most of the "accepted" audio imporvements are probably just as imaginary. For example, many people claim that they can hear a difference between WBT or Cardas connectors (binding posts and RCA plugs) vs. regular Radio Shack types. Also, many people claim to hear a difference between different types of insulation.
I am willing to put down $10,000 cash on a challange of any double-blind scientifically organized listening test. If the listener can identify WBT posts versus 50 cent posts from Radio Shack in a double-blind listening test, then I will pay this person $10,000.
Anyone care to accept the challenge?
So, please stop trashing the CLC when you people accept other ridiculous accessories.
And Elizabeth, if mdhoover would have set up the same listening experiment for what I just proposed above, his group would of had nearly identical results.
Also, let's keep in mind that the CLC can alter time, and the WBT posts, that cost like $200 for a set of speakers, cannot. So which is a better value?
Oh, before I forget, I will also pay anyone $10,000 who can correctly identify a difference between a $2000 fancy power cord (you can choose your favorite manufacturer) and a $2 computer grade power cord from CompUSA in a scientific double-blind listening test.
Audioari1, I accept your challenge. I'd like to use a $1,200 cord if you wouldn't mind though. Heaven only knows, besides the monetary prize, what it is about these Challenge offers that motivate me so.
Wellfed, I would like to add one caveat to my offer so that it is taken very seriously and so that I know you are not going to waste my time.
1. If you can identify your power cord vs. a $2 CompUSA powercord in a scientific double-blind listening session, then I will pay you $10,000 as promised.
2. If you fail to correctly identify your powercord, then you will pay me $1,000.
So if you are very confident that you can do this then this should not be much of a risk for you. Besides, I am risking 10 times as much money.
The reason I want to structure this challenge this way is because the previous offer would allow you to only gain and nothing to loose if you are wrong.
Please let me know if you are willing to accept my challange.
Audioaril, I am a bit confused. After following this thread for some time, I thought you were an advocate of the differences the CLC would make. Then, you seem to switch camps and say that most tweeks don't work or can't be heard? It seems to me that the evidence/explanation for power cords making a difference makes more sense than the CLC.
On the issue of challenges, I wouldn't take one that compares RCA connectors, but I'm pretty confident about the power cord challenge. Were do you live as I may very well take you up on the $10,000/$1000 challenge.
Audioari1, I am no longer a betting man, but depending on the conditions and rigor you stipulate for this testing I can only say that I will seriously consider any proposal you choose to offer. Please write me privately to discuss anything you have in mind.
My intention is to show that a lot of what we believe to be actual upgrades are quite imaginary. This does not, however, mean that the upgrade was not effective. Whether you are imagining it or not, the sound quality is improved. "I think therefore I am". If you discovered that your entire life is just a figment of your imagination, would it make it any less important?
So my examples are used to demostrate that the imaginary imporvement of a power cord is not any different then the imaginary improvement that occurs with the use of the CLC. In fact, the CLC may be quite a bit better then a good power cord upgrade.
Also, the explanation for the way the CLC works makes a lot of sense, a lot more sense then the explanation for power cords. The problem here is that the manufacturer will not provide this explanation on his website. But he did explain it to me on the phone. As I said, the CLC is a type of time travel device.
Finally, I live in NY. I know you will fail the test. This will be the easiest $1000 I ever made. I suggest that before you embarass yourself, that you try a few double-blind listening tests at home with the help of a friend.
You have heard nothing yet. My girlfriend and I popped an ecstacy on New Years Eve. The music on my friends CreativeLabs computer speakers gave me orgasmic sensations all over my body, it was going though me, in waves. I have never been so emotionally connected to music in my life. And the bass! Man it was shaking my world. I can honestly say that this little upgrade made this system sound better then any other system I heard at the CES, regardless of price. So if this upgrade made $50 speakers connected to a PC sound better then a $500,000 systems at CES, this is like a $500K upgrade for $20 - street price!
Actually, come to think of it, I am going to bring some audiophile grade MDMA form Amsterdam and start selling it on Audiogon. Guaranteed the best upgrade anyone has ever heard - or your money back, no questions asked.
Also, Faziod, the improvement heard after 8 Buds is also completely imaginary. "The Buweiser does not plug into the wall and has no direct or indirect influence on the audio signal -- not on house wiring, audio components, cables, interconnects, power cords or acoustic waves. Yet the Budweiser has a pronounced affect on the sound of digital and analog playback systems."
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
