The Clever Little Sharp

"while you can"...I guess that would be equal to a listener's lifetime. Not a bad deal for $10 bucks.

Zaikesman,

I agree that expectation explains many of these highly implausable or irrational tweaks.

The same food can taste much better when presented nicely in a classy environment.

I CLEARLY have said over and over again that I expected nothing. I was hoping for nothing. I thought the clock was bull.

Sure, sure. That's why you then went and bought a clock --but not even the clock in question -- because you thought it was "bull". You're a debunker, only a thrifty one.

Let me ask you something Tgun5: Why is it so hard for you to admit to being human? Do you honestly believe it's more probable that it's the clock that makes the sound better, when you yourself can offer no explanation for how, when you admit it's absurd, *and* you acknowledge you're aware of the reality of psychological effects that are well-established -- as well as the type of testing which can counter those effects?

Let me put it another way: If things were reversed, and it was me who came on the forum saying that buying a clock somehow improved my sound, and you were the stone skeptic you claim you were, would you think it was the clock that was "working", or that it was in my mind? The answer must be the latter. So why can't you apply that to yourself? Just look in the mirror.

I believe that either you don't care enough to try, can't really discern differences, or refuse to hear differences due to your intellect.

There's a difference between trying things that could plausibly have an effect, and bringing magical totems into the listening room. I do the former same as any audiophile, and have routinely heard differences, usually subtle but often still valuable (though sometimes not), between rational tweaks like cables, tubes, suspension devices, and power conditioning. The way I see it, I'm actually *more* curious than you, because I'm not afraid to critically examine what I think I hear.

But you're right, I refuse to delude myself that clocks, little wooden disks, etc. that have no means of causation are worthy of idol worship. I think (or hope) the majority of audiophiles are still this way, and that even for those who aren't, these nonsensical fads do ultimately seem to come and go without leaving much of a mark in the end -- surprise surprise (even if something always comes along to replace them when they get tired, and even if those new things often seem suspiciously recycled). Get back to me if you still think putting a clock in the room does anything for your sound a year from now.

It boils down to this: You tried a tweak that even you agree shouldn't be able to accomplish anything at all, you found yourself thinking it actually worked but couldn't imagine why, and you did some tests that you hoped would help confirm or refute what you were having a hard time believing you were hearing. So, I came on the thread to offer you an alternative theory, one far more plausible than any other, about why all this seemed to happen the way it did. Despite it making perfect sense, you rejected it out of hand even though you can't offer another explanation. Therefore, you must think it less likely that you and your friends are subject to psychological phenomena common to all of us, and more likely that your clock is magic.

That's not only silly, it's arrogant and hypocritical. I wondered above at the seemingly incongruous fact that audiophiles as a group are doubtlessly better-educated and higher-earning than the population as a whole (disclaimer: I can't say I fit that description), yet in some ways many audiophiles behave as if they're more scientifically ignorant and gullible with their money than I believe most typical non-audiophiles would be faced with the same lack of evidence and plausibility.

But now I think I may have gotten it backwards: It's not that audiophiles in the camp of the Clock are carrying on as though they were ignorant and gullible *despite* being better-educated and higher-earning as a group; they're actually prone to acting that way precisely *because* of those things. 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; really *do* believe they're somehow exceptional -- more perceptive, more refined, more confident, beyond mere science, beyond questioning, beyond logic, beyond the technology they don't even understand, bold pioneers on an unacknowledged frontier.

Normal standards of reason and scrutiny obviously can't apply to such an elite group, on an aesthetic mission. To question them is to doubt them is to insult them. With their expensive gear and the encouragement (or peer pressure) of this frequently delusionary community of insecure neurotics, they've come to believe they're in a way superior to mere mortals, that simply acquiring a little practice and an esoteric vocabulary means they know and can tell things less sensitve people can't. Well, what it also means, apparently, is that they're prone to losing touch with reality in a particular, peculiar manifestation, on top of all the other baseless superstitions plenty of non-audiophiles, with or without learning and wealth, can tend to believe. And then we ask why the music-loving public at large seems mostly indifferent to being granted the privilege of sharing in the joy of our wonderfully pretentious hobby...

Enjoy your clocks while you can guys, there's no point arguing about it anymore. At least you've stymied Kait in a way I never could have, and for that I thank you.

Hell, I've seen posts here that debated things like the effect of receptacle wall plate material. So why is THIS causing sacrilege? Because it defies common sense or knowledge? My common sense once told me that an "EMF sponge" is nonsense. Yet I swear to the effect of Shakti Stones on my tube gear and digital processors.

So maybe there is something to this that we don't know about yet. The so-called atomic clocks are tuned into a government station that transmits on a frequency of 60 kHz to consumer devices. These clocks pick up the frequency to self-align. Maybe, just maybe (I ain't no physicists), there is noise generated from these clocks that have fundamentals of the 60 kHz pulses.

When we process sounds, it's well known that our brains can fill in lower fundamentals of tones that we hear without that lower tone actually being generated. In other words, an audio illusion. Again, without any scientific evidence to back this up, there may be an illusory effect when one is in proximity to these clocks when they're tuned into the alignment frequency. Maybe this explains the post - unless you're messin' with our heads, dude :)

In all my posts, I have never ever questioned or commented on what other people state they hear or don't hear. If I have never listened to something, then an opinion on my part is just plain uninformed and doesn't add to the debate. Is there something to this? For 10 bucks, I will try the same thing - then I'll see for myself. If I don't hear anything different, I'll chalk it up to my physiology and call it a day.

There may be an explanation; but I think it may be illusory and not have anyhthing to do with an internal change in electronics, speakers or power line quality. A way to prove this would be to put one of these clocks in a room with live musicians and see if there is the same effect.

Nothing 'pitiful' about casual auditioning procedures...no damn procedures at all, golly gee...just listening...I ain't runnin a lab aint writing a column ain't being a scientist...no sir! If I want scientific listening experiences I go get my ears tested...If I want science of most any kind, I don't go lookin on the web. The fact that the clock is cheap makes it easy to try out. Given all the expensive equipment and 'tweaks' out there that people are making money on, it's nice once in a while to 'tweak' my nose at some snobs and fakes. Sell me some dots at $500 I say no thanks, sell me some dots at Home Depot for $1.00 I say, hey! Blue Tack vs its absolutely equivalent office depot counterpart. Once again, good job Tgun5 and the naysayers can go do their science as they please.

And you are wrong again Zaikesman. You said "Baby, you read about a clock improving the sound, you went to the mall and paid money for a clock, hoping it would improve your sound. Get real." I CLEARLY have said over and over again that I expected nothing. I was hoping for nothing. I thought the clock was bull. What do you not understand about these statements?

And yes, there is clearly a difference in the sound of ceramic cable risers. Many here on Audiogon could probably attest to that fact. The trouble is, many that call themselves audiophiles don't take the time to experiment, but they are full of opinions that are OK for print.

Yes, I believe that either you don't care enough to try, can't really discern differences, or refuse to hear differences due to your intellect.

What I really believe though is that you just enjoy a good argument.

Regardless, everyone here is always welcome over for a listen.

c'mon dude, you gotta get yourself sth with a fancy name, that is specifically targeted at gullable audiophiles - then it will work for sure. no ordinary tissot, rolex or timex will work. its gotta be ATOMIC and have some placebo effect embedded :)

I routinely wear an Ultmost digital talking watch, equipped with calender, stopwatch, and 4 distinct alarms. . . although sometimes I do not and I leave it on the night table. It has never remotely occurred to me that I should be hearing something different under differently 'clocked' circumstances. Or perhaps digital wristwatches do not qualify as 'audiophile grade'? Or is a trip to the local Walmart needed to commence the 4th dymensional particle entanglement, quantum dripping audio improvement? Yet I have a real problem. . . I already have at least 5 other various electronic clocks running at all times within 50 feet of my system, and twice as many digital watches sitting around. Is my system already chronographically optimized? Or is there still a way to improve it?

Onhwy61 - Where do you get the idea I'm draping myself in the guise of science? If anything, I'm going out of my way not to do that. I'm simply saying the clock works. Period.

Why would I want to submit anything about the clock for approval to the scientific community? You're not following the Josephson arguments very well.

You're not insinuating anything and you're not really saying anything. You're just trying to make a honest dollar selling something to somebody who wants to buy it. Nobody is twisting the buyers' arms, so it's all good. Just don't drape yourself in the guise of science. Good science is separated from bad science by the peer review process. I'm sorry you consider it snippy to be asked to submit your "research" to those best equipped to understand it.

Onhwy61 - I'm not insinuating anything, just offering a point of view of someone known for his work in quantum physics as well as paranormal research.

Actually your snippy attitude tends to support Josephson's point, now that I think about it.

GK

Tgun5: Your appeals to supposed exceptionalism (the "gifted listener" paradigm, that I don't know *your* friends, etc., as if somehow you and these people are beyond the limitations and foibles of mere mortals) is simply self-justification for running the most casual and misleading of experiments. The stuff about not carrying expectations into your trials is hooey. Baby, you read about a clock improving the sound, you went to the mall and paid money for a clock, hoping it would improve your sound. Get real. This is all your perogative of course, but if you feel so strongly that you've reached a valid conclusion, why not go ahead and run some real tests with your "golden-eared" friend and see what holds up?

I trust both my hearing and Jim’s and our ability to report the differences accurately. This is part of the hobby and knowing what and how to listen to improve the sound. I simply do not need a double blind test to verify this. My sound is proof of this fact.

Circular reasoning is proof anything you want it to prove. Personally, I've never done a double-blind test. You need at least 3 people to do so, and I don't have "audiobuddies". But I've tried my best to avoid the need by being as rigorous with myself and my auditioning procedures as I can on my own. Many is the time I've revised my initial, or even second or third, impressions of some change I made in the system. The difference between you and I isn't the acuity of our systems or ears, it's in how we perceive "reality". That's why you're sure the precise glaze on your cable risers makes a "dramatic" difference. (Visit the other thread and read my take on Audio Machismo for a diagnosis.) Believe it or not, I'm a musician, record collector and audiophile, not an EE who spends his time measuring zip cord for grins. But those freaks are starting to look more and more reasonable to me...

Tarsando: If you really feel that what brings "fun" to listening is doing whatever silly nonsense the other guy is doing, have at it. But you're right -- you seem to be in great company when it comes to audiophiles feeling confident in proclaiming that however the sound of their system strikes them at any given moment, well golly gumdrops, that certainly must be to the credit of the system, and not laid at their own feet for their pitifully casual auditioning procedures ("I listened for 10 more minutes and decided, hey, this really is better!"). Gimme a break. "Discovered" the tweak? The man copied some other guy -- except that he left out the part which supposedly makes the tweak work if you believe that guy. Nevertheless, you want to know which exact clock he bought -- even though he chose his at random, and even though Machina Dynamica says it doesn't matter which clock is used (true enough!). And we marvel at lemmings...

Guess Geoffkait'll have some 'splainin' to do. On the other thread, Sherod posted a while ago that he could certainly understand Mr. Kait keeping his "theories" and "practices" a secret, since otherwise somebody might copy his product and steal his business. Well sure, I thought (but didn't post at the time): If they knew what he really did -- meaning didn't do -- and still believed in fairies, they would just buy what he buys (and then resells with a sticker put on) and cut out the middleman. The "secret" he doesn't want you to know is that there is no secret -- just a damn clock, no different from the one half of us have upstairs and just as good for telling the time. Now the "cat's" out of the bag and Tgun5 has "proven" that you don't need Machina Dynamica to gain this wonderful sonic advantage (whatever it is). I'm lovin' life...

Tarsando, from your posts it seems you've been very influenced by the price of the tweak. Obviously value is an important component in any buying decision, but it is also just another element that can unduly influence your decidedly non-scientific listening experience.

Geoffkait, Mr. Josephson is concerned about the blinding effect of orthodoxy in physics research. Are you in any way insinuating that there is research behind the CLC? If so, please submit to journals for peer review. Only then would anything in Mr. Josephson's article have even the slightest relationship to the CLC.

Zaikesman, I have read explanations like yours many times, so this phenomenon is certainly not new or unknown to me. However, your explanation assumes many things.

It assumes that every tweak we try will produce a change for the better if our subconscious decides this prior to listening to it. This is simply not the case. I have tried numerous tweaks over the years and many have produced zero to very negative results. This means that with each tweak, I have subconsciously predetermined whether there will be no change, a negative change, or positive change. This is ridiculous.

It assumes that every one has been gifted by God with the same ability to hear. If we were all blessed the same, there wouldn’t be enough Olympic gold medals to go around.

It also assumes that you know the people involved, which you don’t. You explain that my excitement and subliminal cues affected the outcome. I can assure you that Jim J. is less interested in agreeing with me and more interested in telling the truth as he hears it. Over the past 30 years, we have used each other to check and verify what each of our systems is doing. Many times, the conclusion is negative, not positive. If anything, I have learned over the years not to show excitement for Jim actually enjoys bursting my bubble.

Do you really believe that I wanted to report that a stinking clock improved the sound? I find this concept ridiculous and it quite frankly, it may make me to appear to be an idiot – and in so many words, you point this out.

If you believe that differences in sound at the upper level are dependant upon applied technology, I wouldn’t disagree. I also point out that the most tweaks are applied or designed using a scientific concept, yet this does not mean all variances within the concept affect the sound equally. Take cable risers for example. The concept is that raising the cables off the floor reduces the amount of static transferred from carpet. Makes sense, but different brands of ceramic risers sound dramatically different. This evidently has to do with the type of glaze used and its RFI/EMI rejection. Should glaze make a large audible difference in cable risers? Probably not, but it does. And risers of acrylic, cardboard or wood also sound different. Regardless of the reason, this is where the “magical” part of this hobby comes into play. To the average person, this would sound crazy and certainly make no sense. To the audiophile who has taken the time to compare, it is fact.

Do I believe the clock is magical? Absolutely not. But like the glaze, some things produce results that are beyond expectation and understanding. Besides, the clever little clock supposedly does operate under some scientific theory that I previously decided was bunk. It apparently is not.

I believe this is less about a double blind test and more about your desire to disprove and argue. I think you may be in the wrong hobby. Or maybe you aren’t. You might consider opening a company that offers double-blind testing services to audiophiles, making sure their methods conform to the limits of science.

I have offered a cheap experiment that anyone who wants to take the time and effort can do. If you don’t want to spend the $9.95, have predetermined it will not work, cannot trust your hearing, or think your system does not have the resolution capability, simply do not do it. It’s pretty simple.

As far as this clock, I trust both my hearing and Jim’s and our ability to report the differences accurately. This is part of the hobby and knowing what and how to listen to improve the sound. I simply do not need a double blind test to verify this. My sound is proof of this fact.

Good one Z-man.

Now let's see what someone who has more or less an opposite view of things has to say. This link is an article by and about Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize winner for quantum physics:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PWprofile.html

Zaikesman...Given that music itself can be (non-)scientific and magical (for sure) if not 'self delusionary', is it any wonder that those of us with an interest in music might have inclinations along the same lines? I bought a clock yesterday, it seemed to make a difference--then I noticed that my digital phase switch was in the opposite of its normal position. So I switched that and the sound seemed regular, except, after a few minutes, I thought, geez this IS better. Personally, if it's a delusion, I'm glad the object of my delusion is a $10 item that a fellow audiogoner 'discovered' and not some $10 -$100 thing that a specialty company has touted and marked up to $100-$1,000 or more. This is, after all, a hobby, and if there is no fun left in the hobby, it's time to find another one, IMHO. Good work Tgun5!

Tgun5, there is a very simple and predictable explanation for what you describe. Yourself, your son, and your audiobuddy were all psychologically primed to report some kind of audible change between the two trials, and unconscious logic would dictate that if you were making a change, it should be for the better. Just because you didn't actually tell your son or your buddy what exactly you were doing doesn't mean this heightened expectation wasn't being created. It was not a double-blind test, meaning you (the tester) were full of positive expectations when you tested not only yourself, but also your other two subjects, to whom that expectation was subliminally communicated via unconscious cues you provided them. Congratulations, you have done an educational experiment confirming the power of this well-known tesing bias phenomenon. I hope you know, or can imagine, what kind of tests you really need to run in order to discover whether either yourself or anybody else can actually detect an impact on the sound from the clock's presence to a statistical significance. If you do those tests, I think you'll find the effect is infinitely less than the variety you've demonstrated so far. (In fact, even if you just continue doing informal A/B trials involving only yourself, you stand a very good chance of coming to the conclusion that the clock was never doing anything at all for the sound.)

I've got to admit, the "other" threads on this topic notwithstanding, it still absolutely blows my mind that people as educated and high-earning as audiophiles tend to be, can so often fail to display even a basic grasp on such elementary principles of human sense, perception, and behavior related to listening, as well as scientific procedural principles in general...And I find it not a little ironic that a hobby so dependent on applied technology can also be so infected with an inclination toward the anti-scientific, the magical, and the self-delusionary. Are audiophiles really this ignorant and gullible? Are they even more ignorant and gullible than people in general? It seems like they shoudn't be, and I'm pretty sure that once upon a time they weren't, but today? I don't know...

Never said it made sense, just a sonic improvement.

heres a link to the Clever Little Sharp
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009OAFOI/002-0713836-4082401

838 words and not a damn bit of sense...

It's already audio night at the comedy club. Or is it conmedy night at the audio club?

Bgrazman, I've got one of those tube clocks in my office. Great conversation piece!

Vibrapods are good, but, what "The Clever Little Sharp" really needs is a Siltech Ruby Mountain Signature G6 for the battery recharger. A serious power conditioner, dedicated rack, Poly Crystal cable towers, Shun Mook Diamond Resonators, Shakti EMI Diffusor Stone are just some of the tweeks that will get your "Clever Little Sharp" on its way, at least untill your willing to get really serious about really getting the most out of your investment. Oh and don't forget "Peter's Belts".

Try putting it on Vibrapods and using gold plated batteries. Also, by setting the clock ahead one hour will provide more PRAT while setting it one hour behind makes things more musical. :>)

Come on..... BUT, if it works for YOU then that is all that matters. The mind is a wonderful thing.

Bought one at lunch, like I said I would. It's in the trunk of the car. Have to tell you though, someone at Wal-Mart got wind of this impending fad because the PRICE HAD GONE UP. I paid $9.96.

Tgun;
Could you post a link to a picture, or a model # so we all know which version to look into?
Thanks

You should see if the guys over at The Upgrade Company would mod it for you. I hear the SE version is better.

To answer some of the questions;

I haven't tried to put anything around it - padded box, etc. I have put it in different locations within the room and it is consistant in each location. I haven't tried other rooms

I have not tried to fool any of the listeners by pretending to bring something in and did not. I probably should have but since 1) they didn't know what I was bringing into the room 2) that it wasn't related to the system since it was on the opposite side of the room 3) I could have been bringing in nothing, or a rock just to play a game on them. These factors lent credibility to the test.

I have not tried multiple clocks as of yet. I was hoping that many of you would take this to the next step and do more experimenting.

Fascinating results from your experiments! Can you tell if the clock puts out any sounds? like, perhaps a high pitched, nearly ultrasonic whine? Have you tried putting a padded box around it?

I prefer tubes (I have a nixie tube clock in my listening room).

I wonder how the average Wal-Mart clerk will react when the audiophiles descend, asking which clock soundstages better? There is a walmart on my way home - ironically there is no clock in my listening room, and I had been thinking about buying one, since I often lose track of time down there, which can be detrimental to my ability to have "relations" with my SO, if you know what I mean :)

Some guy selling a clock for a hundred bucks...I would never believe. This post by you.....priceless....I am going to go at lunchtime today and buy one (really). I'll let you know!

Have you thought about trying multiple clocks? If one is good and two is better, I would buy $500.00 worth of those things and scatter them all over my listening room!

In your experiment, did you ever "fake" bringing the clock back in (or taking it out), or did you either add or remove the clock every time you left the room?