Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

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.

Zaikesman, your last point, "I'd have to give a shit," is exactly the point of those suggesting that the CLC should be tried, especially given some reviews that suggest it works. We don't really give a shit that some demand an explanation, if we hear an improvement.

I have tried several tweaks that did not have very good explanations, notably the Bybee filters and various cd mats, that proved of no benefit, but I have tried others that did, such as the IC, which I heard demonstrated at CES and the Muratas also demonstrated at CES, that proved excellent. None of these have been in experiments where statistical significance was assessed. It matters not to me if I hear a difference.

I teach research methods and find the question of whether a random sample's sampling error could have accounted for the variation noted to be trivial, especially as anything will be statistically significant if the sample size is large.

I know from experience that neither one of us will have a change of heart as a result of these discussions

I couldn't agree more with that...

so I see no point in risking alienation with continued debate

...maybe not so much with this, but I concede the possibility. I'm not trying to change your mind, believe it or not. And as far as I'm concerned you don't risk alienating me, though I can't know about me alienating you. (Not, of course, that this discussion has just been between you and me.) But I can understand getting tired of it.

And if you're happy with your CLC's, why risk lousing it up by doing the test I proposed? Or subject yourself to a lot of flack? Same as me not wanting to waste my time and money "auditioning" the Clock when I'm certain in advance I won't hear any difference. As much as any intellectual criticism though, I'd just feel unbearably *silly* actually "testing" something along these lines.

As you know, the only reason I ever came on this thread was to poke fun. Not necessarily at you, but at the product you like, which is dangerously close to the same thing I admit. Then I went away. Then the humor kind of ceased to be funny any more, and serious points were raised (in theory, if maybe not in reality when it comes to something as frivolous as high end audio), so I got serious for a change of pace. There's only so far it can be taken without repeating oneself.

I actually have about half of a lengthy response to Dave Clark composed and waiting, but I haven't had the heart to carry through with it. It's not that I'm at a loss for something relevent to say, it's just that I think, is it really necessary to continue blabbering on about this stuff? Maybe so, I'm still thinking about it. I take more seriously what I see as lazy work of published writers like the Clarks and irresponsible claims of manufacturers like Kait than the whims of the audiophiles whose money they take...and then again, I don't really care about anybody but myself in these trivial matters of caveat emptor and different strokes...