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.
128x128tgun5
tarsando
578 posts
 
At least we know now the level of 'seriousness' in these formum 'debates'. I.E. zero. This probably won't make it past the censor (er, the moderator).
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Nope, apparently the censor (er, moderator) has a sense of humor...
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.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Jayboard, you say, "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 am not suggesting it is beyond science, but I am saying that there are many often contradictory or conflicting principles and unclear areas where we cannot say what is the best design or circuit. Are choke and coil power supplies superior to solid state regulated supplies?

Please remember that we are dealing with a hobby not with our health with regard to the threat that people may be predisposed to like some things. And remember that those not wanting to hear a difference may not hear one also.

I personally would be uninfluenced by tests any more than I am by the comments of most reviewers. Even when I could afford very little and J. Gordon Holt was doing reviews that I very much respected, I still tried stuff for myself. I frequently receive emails asking whether I have compared two components and if so which I liked. If I have done the comparison, I will say what I think, but I hasten to say that my experiences may not apply. Perhaps I am the exception, but I suspect not. Most must try it for themselves or have those they trust try it and report.

Finally, I don't think such testing would "prove" that the CLC or the IC doesn't work. But I am certainly not saying that the CLC works. I haven't heard one. The IC, however, is used on every disc that I play. Again I have no idea why it works.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Tbg: Have you done any obvious tests to find out if the IC works as you think? If not, why not? All you need are multiple copies of identical disks. CD-R's that you make should suffice just fine, since MD says the IC operates on the polycarbonate layers and not the data substrate, so the investment is small.

Just burn, say, three copies of a test disk and put the original CD(s) you used away (doesn't matter whether those original disks had been treated with the IC before or not). Then label the CD-R's 1-3 and audition them enough to see whether you think you can tell them apart at all (the answer should be no, or else the test won't work).

Once you're satisfied with that, then treat one of those CD-R's with the IC and remember which one it is. Give all three disks to a test helper person. Don't tell them which number disk you treated, or even necessarily what you're doing all this for. Have them randomly insert the disks in the player for you without telling you which number is playing. Listen as you please using the remote control (your helper can leave the room while you listen, returning just to swap disks.) Do several trials this way and have your helper jot down your choices without letting you know the numbers of your picks while the test is still in progress. See if you can consistently identify the treated disk just by listening. If the IC works as well as you seem to believe it does then you should have little difficulty, but I don't think you'll be able to do it.

I have to say, this is exactly what I would do if I bought the IC, didn't see how it could possibly work, but thought it did something positive anyway. To those audiophiles who find the IC effective, but can't accept MD's explanation why or think of a better one themselves: If you're not curious enough to feel almost compelled to get to the bottom of what you think you perceive by doing such a test, then all I can say is you're a very different animal than I. Truth in beauty, beauty in truth.
More to discover