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

Showing 10 responses by tbg

tbg
5,263 posts
 
Guidocorona, speechless but yours is just an alternative hypothesis nevertheless.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Onhwy61, I certain don't see myself as a critic of science, just as a critic of how much we know through science, at least thus far. Certainly good science is always prepared for a paradigm shift where we realized what we thought we knew was wrong.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
No mountain of math, usually an observation that is implausible. I am not saying by any means that the CLC is such, but your mockery is irresponsible for a scientist.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Guidocorona, you and I have been through this repeatedly. My point, over and over again, is that science is incomplete and that most advances come from anomalies in observations of reality. I have yet to try the CLC and dearly wish that I could have heard a demonstration.

If I heard an improvement as I did and continue to hear with the Intelligent Chip, I would buy one with or without any real understanding of why it worked. It troubles me to hear mystic explanations although they may just be cover for information that the manufacturer does not want to release.

I realize that other explanations, such a skin effects and dielectric problems on wire, vibration control with isolation devices, and cone distortions and flux densities in speakers may be post hoc grasping at science to explain what is different on ones product. These may be plausible but not necessarily correct explanations.

I doubt seriously how much science directs the development of products, or perhaps I should say one science theory rather than another.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Zaikesman, who says I have not done this? Who says it has any relevance to others or should convince others?

This is not about truth, it is about enhancing the reproduction of music. As such, a simple demonstration at CES two years ago, convinced six or seven of us who heard it enough for most of us to buy ICs. I have never heard a demonstration of the CLC, so I continue to hesitate. None of the tests you repeatedly proposed would satisfy me at all.

I heard demonstrations of the Shun Mook Mpingo disks and still use them on many components. I heard a demonstration of the Murata super tweeters and bought them even though they come in at 15k Hz and extend to 100k Hz and when on by themselves you hear no music. I continue to use them. I have also tried many tweaks that have proved useless. YMMV applies.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Z, is not my answer obvious?
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.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Given the level of discourse, would anyone notice were it terminated?
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Zaikesman, while you are more reasonable than many others demanding experiments to "prove" an effect, you also fail to realize that the so-called placebo effect works both ways. Prior conceptions, such as yours, that there could be no effect can condition not hearing one. Were medical studies to suggest to subjects that this medicine will have no effect, it would minimize its effect.

No doubt some are more susceptible to suggestion than others, and I think Tgun5 has you about his rejecting other tweaks where your logic would suggest he would embrace all tweaks.

As you have said somewhat dismissively here and elsewhere, there is no resolving the dispute between those who demand experiments with some blinds and others who merely want to report their experiences. I personally find Tgun5's report fascinating.

I would add one additional personal experience. Long ago before Tice copied them, a small Iowa company made the EAU-1 clock. This was not battery powered. I bought one and found that it had a positive effect if plugged in the right way. It has a two prong plug. Scott Nixon suggested that RadioShack had an identical clock, which they did. I bought one and unlike Scott found it failed to give any improvement regardless of how it was plugged in.

Several weeks ago, I again tried removing the EAU-1 and then reinserting it and checking which way the plug was inserted. It still has a positive effect and also gives me the time in my listening room.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Jayboard, I am not the one dragging science into such discussions. Those who dismiss devices as without scientific explanation and demanding that "science" in the guise of DBTesting are doing the dragging. I am making three points.

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.

Secondly, I don't understand why the results of "scientific" testing would resolve whether a device would satisfy a prospective buyer of its worth. A test must validly assess differences to be convincing.

Third, many who say they embrace science speak of the possibility that humans can be affected by their prior conceptions and think they hear an improvement. 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.

I am not claiming that I can hear what others cannot. But I do believe that some dismiss what others decide as preposterous and claim that "science" and "scientific testing" would prove them right.

Regardless of how tests such as proposed by Zaikesman might come out, one side or the other would be unconvinced.

Sales of the CLC and some experimenting with the Sharp probably have been spurred by these threads as people do what they always have done--try it for themselves.
More to discover