Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Norm,

I very much doubt that you'd be disappointed if you elect to. Two are seriously better than one and I'll soon be finding out whether three are better than two. And one is certainly enough to thoroughly impress.

Double4w: You sound entirely too sensible to be hanging out here. To be an audiophile, apparently, you must be obsessively interested in a highly technical hobby while remaining willfully ignorant of the science behind that hobby. I don't know how long you've been away from audio, but it is now overrun with silly products which only survive in the marketplace because of that willful ignorance. The Clever Little Clock is interesting only to the extent that even many audiophiles can't swallow it. But it's no more absurd than so many other things that are accepted as having a legitimate place here in Audioland.

Do you people realize that the CLC is a time travel device? This means that it is significantly more advanced then any power cord upgrade.

A time travel device? OK

If only Rod Serling were still alive.

Pabelson,

Unfortunately, you miss the point of high-end audio entirely. It is precisely because listening results do not correlate with science is what makes high-end so interesting. For example, a $200 JVC receiver from CircuitCity has better measurements then nearly all single-ended tube amps that cost thousands of dollars. But the tube amp surely sounds better then the $200 JVC receiver. But HOW CAN THAT BE?????!!!! OH MY GOD, MY REALITY IS SLIPPING AWAY FROM ME!

If listening results did not correlate with science, then why are you challenging people to blind listening tests?

By its very nature science is incomplete, when there is a wide divergence between listening test and measurements, then maybe we need better measurements, not less science.

Audioari1,,,There is nothing wrong with the measurements on the $200 JVC receiver. What is wrong is the assumption that its low distortion (for example) is what people want. The SET amp has loads of distortion, but some people like the sound of distortion. After all, a musical instrument, for example a violin, does not produce pure tones, but lots of harmonics. Just think of the SET amp as a musical instrument.

This is an entertaining thread. I feel that science cannot explain all of our experiences. How does science exlain that some people can walk barefoot on hot coals and not burn their feet? I believe it's in the power of the mind. I have yet to hear any scientifically proven explanation for this phenominon. Is there anyone reading this thread that thinks coal walking is a hoax?

I will refrain from any judgement on others if they feel the CLC makes a difference in what they hear. This may be an example of one of many phenominon that the science community just can't explain. It also may be the placebo effect, which certainly has been scientifically validated. In either case, the listener believes they are hearing a positive change and therefore the end result is equal.

A movie that comes to mind is "Contact". Very thought provoking.

Mootsdude...You picked a bad example with fire walking. Science has provided the explanation. White ash on the coals is a good insulator if you keep walking fast.

Ok. Maybe that is a bad example. Though science has an explanation for it, I still question whether everyone can walk on white hot coals without burning their feet - just by walking fast. Which still leads me to believe there may be something beyond the scientific explanation given. The point is there are many things that science has yet to explain - dare I enter religion into this discussion.

No, Mootsdude, it's actually a great example. Science had an answer--you just didn't know it. And when you were told it, you started speculating without any basis in fact, instead of just accepting the answer. That's exactly what too many audiophiles do when presented with something absurd like the CLC. The problem isn't what scientists don't know. It's what audiophiles don't know about science.

Pabelson... "The problem isn't what scientists don't know. It's what audiophiles don't know about science".

Well said! That boils down thousands of words into the essence of truth.

Like audio is a mental excercise? Where is there truth in that? Any audiophile worth his salt knows that it is an observational excercise. Audiophiles can be fooled by their senses into thinking they hear something that isn't actually present, but the notion that they are 'always' fooled is the thing that is truly absurd, not to mention unbecoming in its presentation.

The problem 'really' is what sceptics presume to 'know', without proper investigation.

Eldartford and Pableson. Do you agree that there are things that science has yet to prove or explain? I try to keep an open mind and truly believe that there is a spiritual side to life. Is the great majority of the World ignorant to believe in God?

I certainly am not disagreeing with the scientific explanation of why fire walking is possible. I just want to make a point that not all things can or ever will be explained by science. Does that mean they don't exist?

ROTFLMAO. This thread just gets better with each passing day. 1st the clock, then power cords & cables, now God. Hard to imagine what could be next! Better than the comic's or politics by a far margin! :-)

Come to think about it, why not politics. The folks on the far left can hear everything and check daily under their beds for boogy men before they pile in and the folks on the far right are just deaf, dumb, and blind, but they sleep well at night! Sounds somewhat like the two camps engaged here.

Back under the bridge I go............

Yes, power cords, terribly amusing and novel stuff there. That last 6 feet...zzzz

We are talking engineering here, not basic science. Engineering uses the best estimates for how to get something done. In engineering there is always the safety factor, something added just in case the formulas lack something.

If as Eldartford suggests, Pabelson is correct that science knows but audiophiles don't, then why is there not just one best cable, one best speaker, one best amp. As engineering exercises with given price points, all amps, cables, speakers are compromises given the limits of technology. Engineering within the limits of what science has researched can tell us what considerations need to be made in designing a speaker, but not how to build the best speaker.

While I recognize Eldartford's science background, most who post here and claim science background's don't have them. Those with no scientific training should not recognize assertions, such as science knows just audiophiles don't. For most this is shear hubris and bullshit. They don't know but believe in common sense not science.

If as Eldartford suggests, Pabelson is correct that science knows but audiophiles don't, then why is there not just one best cable, one best speaker, one best amp.

Because science doesn't tell us that there is only one best anything. Thanks for proving my point about what audiophiles know about science.

For example, the "best" cable, in the technical sense, is the one that distorts the signal the least. (Although some audiophiles may actually prefer a cable that distorts more!) But which cable that is depends on the impedances of the amp and speaker it's connecting. As a practical matter, many cables distort the signal so minutely--a fractional roll-off in the top octave--that the differences aren't audible (assuming you do a meaningful comparison). But when the differences are audible, a few measurements will suffice to explain why.

TBG, many a person who claims common sense, believes that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones - that is just common sense, isn't it? In fact I think that those persons would probably claim that they have 'seen' the proof that heavier objects fall faster.
Ans, since when is engineering not science?
Bob P.

.
As a senior engineer, with a lowly BME degree, I at some times had scientists (Physics PHD) working for me. I think that there are clear differences between Engineers and Scientists.

There is a saying that "There comes a time in every project to shoot the Engineers and get on with the job". Scientists, who may have been useful in getting the contract, should nevertheless be shot before work begins.
.

"A movie that comes to mind is "Contact". Very thought provoking."

Science cannot explain time itself, the deeper they dig the closer they are coming to the fact that time is an illusion created by the brain. For instance, consider this; movement IS time/time IS movement, they are one and the same, one cannot exist without the other. There is 'NOW','NOW' stands on it's own, 'NOW' does not have a past or a future, it not a movement from one place to another, i.e. 'NOW' did not come from someplace nor is 'NOW' going someplace. 'NOW' is timeless and you are living 'NOW'.

inperinovations, it is an applied science and as such uses the discovered laws of more basic research.

Also, of course, when you get to a larger scale, such as planets and stars, really heavier objects will fall toward each other more rapidly given their combined gravitational attractions.

As I said, the CLC is a time travel device. Line, you are right that time is an illusion of the brain.

"Also, of course, when you get to a larger scale, such as planets and stars, really heavier objects will fall toward each other more rapidly given their combined gravitational attractions"

Game, set, match, Pabelson! Tbg: Please, tell us you don't really...Aw hell, I'm joining you under the bridge Newbee, I need to catch my breath from ROTFLMAO -- at least you're right, this thread is gettin' good again...

But isn't the brain an illusion of the brain?

I know some blond's that have an "illusion" of a brain.

Two blonds walk into a building. You would think the second one would have noticed.

Hee hee! The second blonde was an audiophile ;^)

Well, how many blonde woman audiophiles do you know? Actually, not only was the blonde an audiophile and a man, he was the same man -- unfortunately though, he wasn't carrying his CLC on his person, and therefore experienced some temporal dislocation which resulted in his walking into the building a second time...

Tvad,

First was a woman, second was a woman.........UNTIL she walked into the building and the impact transported her: (see: Clever Little Clock).

.......back to the moment of conception.

SHE WAS SUDDENLY CONVERTED INTO A MAN!

This is no laughing matter, one more man, one less woman, and an audiophile somewhere is all alone on Saturday night.

I was trying to find a way to demo this "Clever Little Cock," put that phrase into Google and got some sick porn stuff.

What is with you Audiophiles?

I was trying to find a way to demo this "Clever Little Cock," put that phrase into Google and got some sick porn stuff.

Were you innocently expecting to find yourself a clever little bedtime story?

I thought I read somewhere in one of Audioari1's postings that this clock 'could alter time'. Nice. If I could make any kind of device that could alter time and reproduce this unit with some kind of massproduction unit, I wouldn't bother with audio anymore. How about a Nobel price and a bank account that would make Bill G.'s account look like a paperboy with no job? If I wanted to hear, let's say, the Rolling Stones, I would buy them.
Seriously: if you have a device that really, actually, could alter time, why waste it like this? Or does this time-altering thing means you buy a clock that doesn't measure time correct?

Albertporter...."This is no laughing matter, one more man, one less woman, and an audiophile somewhere is all alone on Saturday night". Perhaps not so big a problem. It may just be a stereotype, but the word on the street is that audiophiles are partial to men.

I think that there should be one stipulation with this bet between Wellfed and Audioari1. When the aftermarket power cord is in the system, the Clever Lil' Clock should be in the room. When the generic cord is in, the clock should be removed from the building. This will take a few minutes longer, but still all right as it will take a few minutes for each power cord to adjust to the system anyway.

Sherod, that would be a dead giveaway. Besides, it's not terribly likely that this testing will occur in my system. I still have to get back to Audioari1 regarding setting up a test in Chicago, a geographically central location to the both of us.

TBG, about engineering, my degree shows as Bsc. of Applied Science, Chemical Engineering. Much 'basic' research is done by engineers, BTW.
As for large planets 'falling' faster than smaller ones, I would rethink that if I were you, even if it does seem like 'common sense'.
Salut, Bob P.

Does any one really believe this will resolve the matter as to whether or not the CLS works? There was a recent report where MRIs were used with partisans of both party and what happened when they got information that contridicted their partisan beliefs. The anger and emotions part of their brain grew active. For some reasons the researchers did not include less partisan individuals.

I expect both parties here will be emotionally connected to their positions.

Even if there is agreement among them, it makes me no more or less likely to try the CLC. This is the same for DBT. Now if somehow MRIs could be used to see if both individuals reacted differently when the CLC was in the room, I would be most interested.

From reading several threads on the CLC, I am making the hypothesis that the device is based on Radionics principle. This discipline was theorized and put first into practice by Dr. Albert Abrams (1863 - 1924), and later further developed by other alternative health practicianers. In recent times the same subliminal space structure has also been called the Web Effect. According to radionic principles, all visible matter is immersed in a 'fluid' of 'subtle energy fields) or 'subtle frequencies' that govern its outward state. These field cannot be seen nor measured by classical scientific probes or engineering instruments, but can be detected, measured, then modified by a practicianer, usually but not necessarily, through the aid of a focusing or conduit device.
Interestingly enough, as the triad of practicianer, conduit and target subject do not operate at a level of classical physics, but through higher-dymensional 'subtle energy' transfers, neither the gross physical properties of the conduit device (such as the CLC) nor the spatial orientation of the triad, nor the type or degree of connectivity between the interacting components )(audiophile, CLC, audio system) have any real bearing with the induced results, as it is said that Radionics can operate with thousands of miles of separation between the components. Furthermore, as AudioAri1 aptly implies, if the CLC were in fact a Radionicsor web-effect -driven device, it would cause time distortions, translations, or cancellations, as its higher-dymensional principle of operations would bypass the strictures of classic space. Hence no need of cumbersome connectivity between CLC and equipment, nor in fact need of line-of-sight operation. I venture to say that Mr. Kait could easily create a more powerful version of the CLC, perhaps to be dubbed a CMC (or Clever Master Clock, or more accurately the WMC (Web Master Clock)) to reside permantly on his premises. The device would in principle be able to influence any audio system against which it was directed to operate by Mr. Kait. In this configuration and business model Mr. Kait could operate the CMC as a service to audiophiles based on a monthly or annual subscription. Audiophiles would also benefit from any enhancements Mr. Kait made to the WMC without the bother of having to send their own devices back for upgrade. It is worth pointing out that space invariance and insensitivity in Radionics was discovered and put into practice already in the distant 1930s.

Well, that certainly sound like a much better bang-for-the-buck then you are likely to get with any power cord, interconnet, or speaker cable!

Thanks guys for proving the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" false and sticking up for science in your own, albeit quite unintended way! One of those serendipitous moments when it actually seems a shame that by the time we're able to handle reality as a species, we won't exist anymore...

Don't knock what you apparently can't understand. Intelligent Design totally debunks that other theory. BTW, gravity is only a theory too! You should read up on Intelligent Falling. It's the lastest craze.

You sound a lot like Ford Prefect in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Zaikesman. So long, and thanks for all the quips. ;-)

Zaikesman, of course the theory of 'Intelligent Design' is utterly incorrect. Based on Radionics and Web Effect, the world is neither based on intelligent design, nor it is based on trite causality and Gouldian Punctuated Equilibrium, but it is based on sublime Wishful Thinking, according to which. . . "1000 hopeless fantasies make up one solid Reality!"

And you Guido sound like Slartibartfast.

Gee, not that I've read THGTTG, but I thought I sounded more like Chicken Little...