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?
Two pretty much seems to be the magic number for me. I have a third unit here that I'm evaluating and it hasn't matched the dramatic effect provided by the first two. I'm going to pull it out of my system one day soon to see if it's one of those things one misses after it's gone.
I'm copying below excerpts from a positive feedback review in a blind test *without* the CLC, from www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm:
Well, in a word, everything sounded bad. I was surprised at how awful things sounded.... ....Sadly, this song sounded the worst of all. Tinny and bright, and did not produce the chills down my spine that it usually does. ... I literally cringed ...sounded better when I was outside the listening room .... I turned it off completely, and that is my favorite track on the disc.
ok, so I'm supposed to believe that in their audiophile system the music was completely unbearable without the CLC, but when the CLC was brought into the room it sounded glorius. This defies logic and common sense - presumably she had been enjoying music in their home system before this blind test, but suddenly it became unbearable just before the CLC was brought into the house for a test? The way they staged their test also lacks credibility - why not do a true blind test? Sounds like complete nonsense.
So... the implications of this are: I can't trust audiophile magazines and I can't trust what other people report hearing. I can only trust my own ears. The problem is that I have very limited opportunities to audition components in my home, and it requires some expense and effort to arrange auditions. If I can't trust reviews then I don't have much basis for deciding when to go to the effort to arrange an audition. IMO this taints the entire highend audio community, I'll always have to wonder who is full of BS and who might actually be doing something worthwhile.
Having tried and noted that the Quantum Resonance products seem to work, even though I have never gotten a real explanation as to how, I feel compelled, as a wide eyed optimist as it relates to audio improvements to respond. Imagine trying to explain (though they haven't yet tried to prove in any notable scientific manner how this works) the broadcast of a radio transmission, back in the middle ages--even x-ray technology to those not yet exposed (no pun here). There are many more things beheld by us yet not understood or quantified by our current level of understanding or interpretation of physics. Hell, we're still working on 'dark matter' string theory and 11 diminsions.(For that matter, at this seemingly late date, we, about 75 years after discovering Pluto, find it's mate just beyond-- what makes us have the audacity to presume that we can understand what these items do, or don't do? What if it works and even those who made it don't fully understand why? Supposedly, the person who designed the Quantum product, refuses to openly discuss why it works, presumably for proprietary reasons. I was told that his background is in Biomed--and that he is capable of turning a dead, fetid pool of scum on a farm, into a thriving ecosystem with some of his other work. True? I don't know. Stories always seem to surround people like this with no full explanation. The solution here is a 'blind' A/B. Why not a challenge of listeners to quantify this device--if it works, who wouldn't purchase this kind of improvement for $200.? I would-- so, how about a challenge? Anybody game? Especially those selling it--we all WANT to believe, give us a reason, not just compelling side statements.
Tonneson - you make a valid point, one which has been mentioned by other readers of the PFO review.
The reason Carol Clark thought the sound had "deteriorated" (my word) was because she had gotten used to sound with the clock in the listening room for more than a month. So, when her husband (surreptitiously) removed the clock, she heard the sound revert to it's pre-clock state - i.e., subjectively worse. When the clock was returned to the room she noticed the sound return its higher (clock-in-the-room) level. I.e., Dave was attempting something like a casual blind test.
I think the confusion regarding the Positive Feedback CLC test arises because the reader is not let in on the fact that the clock had been in their listening room for a considerable period of time - about a month - prior to the actual "A/B" test.
Dave Clark addresed this mystery of why their system sounded so "bad" all of a sudden at some length recently; perhaps it was on another CLC thread here at Audiogon.
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.
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.
Has anyone done a true blind test - where someone else removes or inserts the CLC in your house? If you can reliably determine whether the CLC is anywhere in the house this would provide remarkable evidence for some totally unknown natural phenomenon. I have to confess that I find the concept so improbable that insanity seems like the more likely explanation - but if people can reliably detect its presence in blind tests I'd happily eat my words and order one.
Given the dramatic nature of the claims for the CLC (per the Positive Feedback review) it should be fairly easy to show that it works in a true blind test. It's also an incredibly easy test to do - no need to mess with interconnects or move speakers or amps around.
I have noticed that on most of the time when I look at the number of bids for the CLC, there is at least one bid on the unit. The starting bid is $125 with no reserve, so every time there is one bid at least, there is a sale - so these things are selling (At least I would assume so) at one a week at a minimum.
I am not in any way associated with machinadynamica - just giving observations what I have seen.
Tonnesen: The results of the fairly unscientific blind test we did with the NJ Audio Society are referenced earlier in one of my posts on this thread (you have to go to another of the many threads on this topic to find it). Take a look at the results and do with them what you'd like. Zaikes, not to take away from your post, but the one person in the test who correctly identified when the clock was in or out of the system felt the clock's effect was detrimental to the sound. Since we're having another meeting at my place on this Sunday, and I still haven't done anything with the clock, I might try it on them, unsuspecting, again, to see if anyone notices anything. Me, so far I haven't heard a difference, and I haven't experienced any time travel effects except that my hair is growing back.
Zaikesman, the Clever Little Clock has only been on the market for a few short months. The nocebo effect requires a subject that exhibits a negative view toward the test object.
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.
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.
I think our members are clocked out, but I think I'll probably do something to take the clock in and out without anyone knowing and see if anyone notices. We've got a speaker manufacturer demoing and I don't want to steal his spotlight. I have done the test sighted with two of our members, neither of whom heard a difference but both of whom were quite skeptical about such a device, to put it mildly.
Tbg, the two who took the sighted test heard no difference with the clock in or out of the house. In the NJAS test, I as the tester was the only one who knew when the clock was in or out of the system, and asked people to tell me if there was a change, not whether there was an improvement or not, though several members did put down their subjective impressions of any change they heard.
In both of these tests, there was a definite negative bias against the clock making a difference, though people were asked to keep an open mind. A far better test would be where a single subject is alone in a room listening to music and asked to tell if there were any difference in the sound of the system from time to time without knowing what was being tested or changed, if anything, in the system.
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.
Tbg - There is no "lingering presence" of the CLC. The clock can, however, affect the sound in the listening room when it is placed in another room of the house. This could be (mis)interpreted as a lingering effect if someone were to remove the clock from the listening room and place it in another room, thinking that the clock is out of the picture.
Strictly on the Hush Hush: The clock was not demonstrated (by me) at CES for a number of reasons, devising a proper test for the clock, esp. one to satisfy the controlled DBTers, is not as simple as it appears and there is risk of "false failure" (if I can be allowed the expression). This risk of failure increaseth (IMO) when systems with brand new speakers and/or electronics are involved... the CLC can do a lot of things but it cannot correct for such ill-advised set-ups. Of course, new speakers/electronics are the rule at the show, sad to say.
Be that as it may, there were at least two CLCs at CES, brought there by a customer. As I hear thru the grapevine, the clocks went over bigtime in the room where they were located - in fact, the exhibitor (who shall remain nameless) requested they remain in the room for the duration. Of course, this is all on the Hush Hush.
Charlie, then what's your take on the one member in our club who correctly knew when the clock was in or out of the system? Knowing the guy, he was not guessing (he has some of the better ears in the club, especially for tweaks), and in fact told me how he could tell the difference. As I mentioned in the report, he thought the clock adversely affected the sound.
I'm not really defending this product, as I've certainly not felt it makes any difference in my system and I do not subscribe to any of Peter Belt's theories (which have been around for years, by the way)--however, I've seen a lot worse and more expensive items I consider rip-offs and pseudo-science in this hobby (Mpingo discs, anyone? Whose ox have I gored here?). I am surprised that this product is the whipping boy and not some of the others.
*Charlie, then what's your take on the one member in our club who correctly knew when the clock was in or out of the system?*
He guessed very well. In any group there is always one person who through gifted insight or dumb luck (much more likely) to guess (not predict as that is based on fact)more accurately than the rest. It's simply a matter of probability and statistics. There is no proof, logic, or empirical data to support any evidence that this product works. The manufacturer has been dancing around an explanation for this and "silly pebbles" for a while now.
According to the Positive Feedback review the effects were so dramatic that it should be easy to carry out a succesful double blind test. Given how improbable this device is, I think the Clarks and Positive Feedback have an obligation to carry out this test to save their reputation. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but there seems to be a excuse to explain away every question.
I'm disappointed about what this says about high end audio in general - manufactures and reviewers are not to be trusted. Seems to me it hurts the industry and it discourages people from getting involved in the hobby.
Line, to make the type smaller you must have the CLC. With two CLCs it will be even smaller. Letters always appear smaller from the perspective of the observer when there is a time dilation.
In response to Tonnesen, WHAT we have a reputation to save?! Gee... okay, not sure I knew I ever had one ;)) Seriously though, I would like to say that (in reading this thread) you guys are all quite intelligent and appear to be rather civil. Very nice for a change. To address some of the concerns or issues with the article on the clock (especially those of Zaikesman); 1. It should be noted that it was (is) simply a report of an experience - our experience with the clock. Nothing more, nothing less. We do not claim to understand nor promote the claims/theroies for how the Clock or Belt items "work" nor do we find any of the ideas/explanations behind them to make much sense to us either. But they have had an effect on us here - sometimes dramatic, sometimes not so much. It was never intended to be a hardcore review nor something that could be precieved (in any sense) as a valid/reliable/testable/whateverable experiment. Just reporting on our experience(s), and not as measurable facts. 2. We apparently failed in the article to make it clear that the clock had been in our ssytem for a month or two - so any "benefit" it was imparting on us had become simply the norm. 3. One of the "ideas" behind Belt suff is that it is cumulative - the more the better (what they say). 4. Prior to the clock, we liked the music as produced by our system very much (with a couple of previous Belt treatments), just that after the clock was inserted we grew to like it way more. Minus the clock made a big difference for the worse. 5. This stuff affects the listener - not one's system. So it does not so much change how things perform/sound, but how one responds to it (what they say). 6. Our comments are honest - we gained nothing from this, so take them for what they are... comments on our experience with the Clock. Maybe it is a bunch of hooey, but what we have written is the truth of what we experienced. 7. Is it all a scam? Not one to say as the stuff works for us, though again, why I have no idea. Maybe for others... which is fine. On the other hand, CArol and I find many of the things that others pursue (as being socially acceptable) to be scams. Not for us, but if it floats your boat - who cares... 8. Is it (or Belt stuff) absurdly expensive for what it "literally" is - most definitely. 9. Worth the money? Up to the individual. Me... uh... never bought any Belt stuff (Carol either). We did buy the Clock though. Tried the Pebbles... did nothing for us. Tried the Intelligent Chip... ditto. 10. Do you need to agree with "any" our articles, reviews, whatever? I see no reason why you should. They are simply our opinions, our reactions, our experiences. If yours (or others) differ, cool. No problem with that. I would expect that as much anyhow - we are all different with different wants and needs, experiences, etc.. Which is why we try at PFO to get the point across that all the articles/reviews are simply what we heard at the time and nothing more (why they say "as reviewd by..."). No proclamations of universal absolute truth. No doubt other people will have different reactions, responses, etc. to the same item in either the same system or most certainly elsewhere. I have no problem with that - what works for one will/may not work for others. Dave Clark
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.
I feel that I may need to address my comments (above) so that people do not take it the wrong way... specifically:
"Do you need to agree with "any" our articles, reviews, whatever? I see no reason why you should."
What I mean is that should/will everyone (or to what degree... anyone!) agree with any (or all, or any parts of for that matter) the reviews/articles on PFO. Some will, some won't, some to some degree, etc. Same with any other publication. "What do mean that preamp is great! I heard it and it sucks!" Probably did for you, but obvously not for that person (or others as well). Heck I read a lot of other people's reviews (in PFO and elsewhere) and frequently question either my hearing or that of the person who wrote what they did - gee... it doens't sound like that to me! As to the BP and IC... well just not enough to make it worthwhile...
"This stuff affects the listener - not one's system. So it does not so much change how things perform/sound, but how one responds to it (what they say)."
Interesting. . . I did not realize the CLC was a MAD (Mood Altering Device). Probably lots safer than Ecstasy. . . and cheaper in the long run. And not at all invasive, unlike James Shatner's Techno. Truly fabulous Science Fiction. . . and it's available now. . .what a deal!
Huh? Oh no, I know exactly how the CLC works. . . same as my lucky-pet-Pecan, which I used to carry in my pocket for several years. Not to talk about the two wonderful Fung Sui wooden forks I put against the picture window above my front door. These are all heavily modded audiophile-grade Pecans and wooden forks. They optimized my annual pay-increase and equally maximized my daughter school grades.
Yes. . . well. . . I won't have 'those' particular nuts cryo-treated nor modded anytime soon, I can assure you! Yet, I am now inspired to a feat of imaginative greatness. . . I'll deploy my 'Lucky Pecan' on top of my CDP tonight and will report on its audio results tomorrow. Nighty-night all!!
Actually space isn't the final frontier, time is. Aside from A Brief History of Time and Time's Arrow there just aren't that many books on the subject. After all this time, there is no equation in physics that shows the flow or passage of time. Does time flow at all? Or was Steve Miller right - that time keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin' into the future?
Another rather peculiar thing, IMHO, is that we live in the "present," timewise; yet if one slices up time into thin enough slices, there is no "present" time, no what we call "now" - there's only what we call the "past" and the "future." Just when you think you can grab onto the present, it's too late - it's already in the past!
Finally, for any science and sci-fi buffs, here's an excerpt from the short story, "Do Super-Toys Last All Summer Long?" by Brian Aldiss that was the inspiration for the Kubrick/Spielberg movie, A.I.:
David was staring out of the window. "Teddy, you know what I was thinking? How do you tell what are real things from what aren't real things?"
The bear shuffled its alternatives. "Real things are good."
"I wonder if time is good.
I don't think Mummy likes time very much. The other day, lots of days ago, she said that time went by her. Is time real, Teddy?"
"Clocks tell the time. Clocks are real. Mummy has clocks so she must like them. She has a clock on her wrist next to her dial."
David started to draw a jumbo jet on the back of his letter. "You and I are real, Teddy, aren't we?"
The bear's eyes regarded the boy unflinchingly. "You and I are real, David." It specialized in comfort.
GeoffKait, that passage by Aldiss is very inspiring. And perhaps suggestive of CLC's principle of operation? An anchor into concrete reality of the so elusive 'here and now'? Perhaps my lucky Pecan works the same way.
I didn't mean to suggest that the excerpt from the short story was any sort of hint as to the clock's operation. The intention in my last post was to suggest that the concept of Time is one we all tend to take for granted, but, in reality, Time is very mysterious and technically difficult to pin down. Kind of like the Clock.
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.
