2. misc-audio
  3. 1140752558

The Clever Little Sharp

After following the clever little clock thread to its current uselessness, I had come the conclusion that the whole concept was total nonsense. The fact that this product’s effect can’t be explained in literature and is, in fact, almost secretive leaves me suspicious. But like many curious audiophiles, I just couldn’t resist doing an experiment.

Before I go further, I must say that I was willing to chalk my findings up to a small personal victory not meant for publication. This is primarily because I didn’t want the negative responses pointing at the fact that I was either crazy or was hearing things that were self-induced.

Over lunch last week, I decided to go to the local discount store and purchase a battery operated clock. I proceeded to the clock counter and proceeded to make a $9.95 cent purchase into a major buying decision. Battery operated w/cord?, LCD or LED display?, black or silver case?, atomic auto setting?, etc. etc. There were probably more than 15 models between $7.99 and $14.99. I ended up with the Sharp LCD atomic clock w/day & date for $9.95. I have no idea whether any of these features are detrimental to the end result, and I doubt if I will ever buy 12 different battery clocks to find out.

I waited for the clock to automatically set itself and set it on a computer table in the room. While I played a few selections waiting for the system to totally warm-up, I thought I noticed a more palatable nature to the sound – actually more musical and warm. There you go, I thought, hearing a change because you want to. I left the room and took the clock outside and laid it on the concrete patio behind my home. About ten minutes later, I returned to listening and darn if something wasn’t missing. This is beyond crazy. I put the experiment on hold.

Later that evening, my son came over for a visit. He is no audiophile, but has the virtue of having 26 year old ears. He has called changes in my system in the past with relative ease and I consider his hearing above par. I asked him to sit in the sweet spot and evaluate if there was a change. I played a selection from Dan Siegel’s Inside Out CD for a reference and then brought the clock in and hid it behind the computer monitor. I requested that he keep his eyes closed and did not let on to what, if anything, I was doing. Midway through the same selection, he smiled and asked “what did you do?” I asked “Why, what are you hearing?” He went on to say that the midrange opened up and is more airy and the bass is more defined, tighter and deeper. I must admit that I thought I was hearing the same thing. I laughed at this point and said to wait until we do this a couple more times. After running back between the patio and listening room a few more times, I finally showed him what I was bringing into the room. His reaction was NOooo! NO WAY!

Even after this, I though that there is no chance that I will post this to Audiogon. It’s like seeing a UFO (not that I have) and trying to convince someone who hasn’t that it is real. Must be a blimp, right?

I decided to enlist my long-time audio friend Jim J. to see if my son and I were both crazy. Now, his ears are variety 1945 (or so – he won’t admit his age) but they are golden by audiophile standards. I proceeded to pull the same trick on him, not letting on to what if anything I did. I will tell you from past experience, he will call the session exactly like he hears it. This means that he will also not say that there is an improvement or any change if it simply is not there. He is as close to the perfect candidate that I would find or trust.

A similar thing happened, but rather than a smile, it was a sinister grin. “What are you doing?” He said. “What is that thing you went and got? It isn’t radio-active is it” he joked. “Well it is atomic” I said as I laughed. COME ON, what is the deal with this? I joking replied that it was top secret, but admitted I really have no idea. What did you hear? He replied that the overall openness and air around each instrument had improved as well as a cleaner, more defined presentation.

I’m sure that many will think we are all crazy, but I thought the open-minded would appreciate the information. I have no idea why it works, nor what the difference is with the supposedly modified clever little clock. I do know that for $9.95, a stock Sharp will enhance your listening. And if it doesn’t, return it to Walmart.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
tgun5

Showing 2 responses by jayboard

jayboard
301 posts
 
Tbg said
you also fail to realize that the so-called placebo effect works both ways. Prior conceptions, such as yours, that there could be no effect can condition not hearing one.
That's not very relevant. It's reasonable and scientific when assessing any new component put into a system, whether it's a $10 alarm clock or a $3,000 DAC, to start off by assuming the new item won't make any difference, positive or negative. It's the job of the new component to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is wrong. That's a fair approach, and it's the one Tgun says he started out with.
Were medical studies to suggest to subjects that this medicine will have no effect, it would minimize its effect.
?? I hope we would want to know this information about the so-called medicine. Are you suggesting that it's picking nits to draw a distinction between a placebo and a real drug?
I certain don't see myself as a critic of science, just as a critic of how much we know through science, at least thus far. Certainly good science is always prepared for a paradigm shift where we realized what we thought we knew was wrong.
Whoa. You've made a big leap here. The question is whether this little clock makes a difference or not. That's what the argument is about. You sound as if you're saying that the possibility that current scientific knowledge might not be able to explain a given observation means that the observation was validly made. That may be expedient, but it's hardly logical.
science is incomplete and ... most advances come from anomalies in observations of reality.
Accepting for the sake of argument your assertion, don't forget that these observed anomalies are outcomes of the scientific method. (I hope I have not taken you out of context.) One starts out with a specific hypothesis and under as controlled conditions as possible (as in an experiment) tests that hypothesis. Tgun's listening session, though a typical audiophile good time (including the companion who has better ears than one's own, the companion who has no reason to be agreeable, etc.), was not a controlled trial. Let's not dismiss science as inadequate before we've even attempted to apply it.

I object to your dragging science, an innocent bystander here, in as a whipping boy for your argument. On the other hand, I didn't have much objection to Tgun's original post, and he certainly doesn't owe it to any of us to do a double-blind test or take any extra measures. I find the subject of his subjective listening session pretty outlandish, but what the heck. It's Audiogon.

Zaikesman said
Guys really *do* think they can hear better than other people; really *do* think they're not subject to the same pitfalls of the mind as the riff-raff;
Sure! Just like we all think we're superior judges of character (and in our judgment, other people just are not as reasonable as we are), when in fact we're probably all below average. LOL
jayboard
301 posts
 
(Hi, Zaikes)

Tbg,
One is that science does not know the basis of all phenomena. I certainly cannot understand how the CLC or CLS might affect what we hear. I am not defending either and own neither.
True. However, music reproduction is possible because of technology, which is based on science. And, thanks to science, the psychology of hearing also is not completely a black box. For these reasons, I think that suggesting that something is beyond science is a trump card that should not be invoked too rapidly, and that doing so is not healthy for the development of our hobby.
I don't understand why the results of "scientific" testing would resolve whether a device would satisfy a prospective buyer of its worth.
I'm no hard liner. I myself take a very subjective approach to the appreciation of hifi equipment. But let's go back to the placebo idea that you raised. Maybe a certain placebo actually makes some individuals feel healthier or less ill. Even so, I would find the practice of putting that placebo out on the market for whatever price it might bear to be extremely unethical. Perhaps this is taking your statement to an extreme, but I'm trying to make a point that, at some point, we should care.
I merely pointed out that this is a two way street. People whose prior conception is that there is no difference are equally susceptible to not hearing a difference.
Again, I agree. Even so, I think this is a very intelligent and rational approach to evaluating equipment, except for those who have more money than sense, as the saying goes. Wouldn't you agree?
Regardless of how tests such as proposed by Zaikesman might come out, one side or the other would be unconvinced.
Don't agree here. If the tests were well designed, with adequate repetitions, etc., I think people would learn a _lot_ and be in much greater agreement (on whether a difference exists, not necessarily whether the difference is good or bad). But this simply isn't possible for people with annual incomes they can remember and reasonable priorities in life, so we'll never know. "Try it for themselves," as you say, and also "caveat emptor" are pretty good guidance in practical terms.

Appreciate your comments.
More to discover