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.
