Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Audioar1, which 11 weren't so good? ;-)

Wellfed, Why are you so well fed? What have you been eating?

Wellfed is a biblical reference from Phillippians Ch. 4 v. 12 that refers to being content no matter the circumstance.

Phillippians 4

Anecdotal is anecdotal, good bad or indifferent. It's not necessarily a pejorative characterization, but neither is anecdotal testimony (especially when selectively presented) a substitute for plausible explanations, care and scrutiny in auditioning practices, and measurable performance. Likewise, words such as "paranormal", "supernatural", and "metaphysical" have dictionary meanings which are not pejorative, just literally descriptive and appropriately applicable to certain identifiable catagories of reported phenomena. As for "claims" that are "touted" vs. "facts" that are "stated", the latter are usually not in dispute -- isn't it up to the purporters of the "unorthodox" to show how they build upon the known facts, and add their evidence for any new ones, in order to convince us of the possibilities in their claims? Conversely, does it not matter if error or illogic can be demonstrated in the reasoning given for those claims? And should we not doubt fantastic claims if no evidence is given at all?

I've learned not to put too much stock in what other audiophiles unknown to me say or their opinions, and ditto reviewers. Audiophiles these days, at least from the written evidence I see, too often suffer from what I call 'audio machismo': Confidently proclaiming to easily perceive differences of the sub-molehill variety -- regardless of how compromised and/or casual the audition circumstances -- while simultaneously exagerating them into mountains of importance. In this competitive and conspicuously-consuming pursuit, demanding any modicum of auditioning rigor, or of modesty in claims made or significance assigned, runs the danger of being taken as indicating self-doubt and tin ears, auto-disqualifiers from membership in the high-end club. It's an environment I fundamentally mistrust.

Does this mean I don't accept that some people using the CLC believe they hear a positive difference? No. But it does mean I'd take any bet that neither Mr. Kait nor his satisfied customers would ever be able to reliably distinguish his "specially treated" Clocks from outwardly-identical ones fresh from Mall-Wart, even given sighted comparison auditioning in their own systems, unhurried and unobserved. (Only conditions: A number of trials rising to statistical significance, and some way to make sure there couldn't be any cheating. And oh yeah, I'd have to actually give a shit ;^)

Zaikesman, I know from experience that neither one of us will have a change of heart as a result of these discussions so I see no point in risking alienation with continued debate.

Live long and prosper as the logical one once said.

I will contact you privately with a few points of interest.