The Clever Little Sharp

Sorry I didn't respond to you above Tgun5, we must have been composing at the same time. I don't want to rehash everything that has been written, but most of what you say is confirmation of what I see as the problems inherent in your assumptions:

"I surmised that if there was going to be a difference at all, it would probably be because of the clock, not some modification to a clock"

"Trained audiophiles know what to listen for and how to trust what there are hearing to get the results"

"I am also convinced that I have been blessed with the ability to discern differences in sound, their overall effect on the system, and the proper approach to improving the sound"

I do find it just a little intriguing that once again, I seemed to have "hooked up", so to speak, in one of these threads with an audiophile who unshakably believes in his own infallible ability to detect changes in sound caused by something he admits couldn't have any possible effect -- this despite not taking measures to ensure his results aren't spurious -- and that such a person also makes a point of correlating their position in this regard with their religious belief. As you've surmised, and as I told Wellfed offline, it is indeed true that I don't share any beliefs of that type, for whatever that's worth. Although this sample size is certainly too small to judge from (ha! :-), it does make one wonder about the possible connection between faith, or the ability or willingness to believe, and the types of audiophiles we are.

Anyway, the main thing I'm trying to get across here is that "open-mindedness" doesn't just mean being willing to contemplate anything that's suggested by someone -- I could suggest that bringing a rubber ducky into the listening room makes the sound better. It also means a willingness to question oneself. In your threadhead, you expressed what sounded like a sincere desire to test the results you say you found so suprising. I'm simply pointing out, if you care, that you haven't actually accomplished that yet, and why.

I can sympathize that repetitious A/B tests and especially blind tests are not very enjoyable as an entertainment activity, and are a pain in the neck to perform. I think it's great that you're now willing to attempt them if you can, and in fact I think that willingness is more important than if you ever actually do. It's not my desire to "make" you give up your clock by proving you "wrong" -- frankly, I'd rather you acknowledge the human susceptability of yourself and your other listeners, but then go right on enjoying whatever it is you think the clock is doing for you. If you really do perform the number of blind trials necessary to get a reliable answer, there's no doubt you'll discover that you and your friend can't identify the clock's presence unsighted, and though you'll have learned something valuable (not about the clock, but about listening and about yourself), you'll also be at least a little disappointed I'm sure, and it's not my aim to be the cause of that.

At least we agree on the impact of your adventures regarding the Geoffkaits of the world (assuming, of course, that this whole thing isn't actually a kind of 'reverse troll' on your part, which would *make* you one of the Geoffkaits of the world ;^). I pointed out his apparent dilemma several posts ago, but so far silence...

PS -- BTW, I didn't say I was an especially *good* musician ;^)

Tgun5: Your appeals to supposed exceptionalism (the "gifted listener" paradigm, that I don't know *your* friends, etc., as if somehow you and these people are beyond the limitations and foibles of mere mortals) is simply self-justification for running the most casual and misleading of experiments. The stuff about not carrying expectations into your trials is hooey. Baby, you read about a clock improving the sound, you went to the mall and paid money for a clock, hoping it would improve your sound. Get real. This is all your perogative of course, but if you feel so strongly that you've reached a valid conclusion, why not go ahead and run some real tests with your "golden-eared" friend and see what holds up?

I trust both my hearing and Jim’s and our ability to report the differences accurately. This is part of the hobby and knowing what and how to listen to improve the sound. I simply do not need a double blind test to verify this. My sound is proof of this fact.

Circular reasoning is proof anything you want it to prove. Personally, I've never done a double-blind test. You need at least 3 people to do so, and I don't have "audiobuddies". But I've tried my best to avoid the need by being as rigorous with myself and my auditioning procedures as I can on my own. Many is the time I've revised my initial, or even second or third, impressions of some change I made in the system. The difference between you and I isn't the acuity of our systems or ears, it's in how we perceive "reality". That's why you're sure the precise glaze on your cable risers makes a "dramatic" difference. (Visit the other thread and read my take on Audio Machismo for a diagnosis.) Believe it or not, I'm a musician, record collector and audiophile, not an EE who spends his time measuring zip cord for grins. But those freaks are starting to look more and more reasonable to me...

Tarsando: If you really feel that what brings "fun" to listening is doing whatever silly nonsense the other guy is doing, have at it. But you're right -- you seem to be in great company when it comes to audiophiles feeling confident in proclaiming that however the sound of their system strikes them at any given moment, well golly gumdrops, that certainly must be to the credit of the system, and not laid at their own feet for their pitifully casual auditioning procedures ("I listened for 10 more minutes and decided, hey, this really is better!"). Gimme a break. "Discovered" the tweak? The man copied some other guy -- except that he left out the part which supposedly makes the tweak work if you believe that guy. Nevertheless, you want to know which exact clock he bought -- even though he chose his at random, and even though Machina Dynamica says it doesn't matter which clock is used (true enough!). And we marvel at lemmings...

Guess Geoffkait'll have some 'splainin' to do. On the other thread, Sherod posted a while ago that he could certainly understand Mr. Kait keeping his "theories" and "practices" a secret, since otherwise somebody might copy his product and steal his business. Well sure, I thought (but didn't post at the time): If they knew what he really did -- meaning didn't do -- and still believed in fairies, they would just buy what he buys (and then resells with a sticker put on) and cut out the middleman. The "secret" he doesn't want you to know is that there is no secret -- just a damn clock, no different from the one half of us have upstairs and just as good for telling the time. Now the "cat's" out of the bag and Tgun5 has "proven" that you don't need Machina Dynamica to gain this wonderful sonic advantage (whatever it is). I'm lovin' life...

I CLEARLY have said over and over again that I expected nothing. I was hoping for nothing. I thought the clock was bull.

Sure, sure. That's why you then went and bought a clock --but not even the clock in question -- because you thought it was "bull". You're a debunker, only a thrifty one.

Let me ask you something Tgun5: Why is it so hard for you to admit to being human? Do you honestly believe it's more probable that it's the clock that makes the sound better, when you yourself can offer no explanation for how, when you admit it's absurd, *and* you acknowledge you're aware of the reality of psychological effects that are well-established -- as well as the type of testing which can counter those effects?

Let me put it another way: If things were reversed, and it was me who came on the forum saying that buying a clock somehow improved my sound, and you were the stone skeptic you claim you were, would you think it was the clock that was "working", or that it was in my mind? The answer must be the latter. So why can't you apply that to yourself? Just look in the mirror.

I believe that either you don't care enough to try, can't really discern differences, or refuse to hear differences due to your intellect.

There's a difference between trying things that could plausibly have an effect, and bringing magical totems into the listening room. I do the former same as any audiophile, and have routinely heard differences, usually subtle but often still valuable (though sometimes not), between rational tweaks like cables, tubes, suspension devices, and power conditioning. The way I see it, I'm actually *more* curious than you, because I'm not afraid to critically examine what I think I hear.

But you're right, I refuse to delude myself that clocks, little wooden disks, etc. that have no means of causation are worthy of idol worship. I think (or hope) the majority of audiophiles are still this way, and that even for those who aren't, these nonsensical fads do ultimately seem to come and go without leaving much of a mark in the end -- surprise surprise (even if something always comes along to replace them when they get tired, and even if those new things often seem suspiciously recycled). Get back to me if you still think putting a clock in the room does anything for your sound a year from now.

It boils down to this: You tried a tweak that even you agree shouldn't be able to accomplish anything at all, you found yourself thinking it actually worked but couldn't imagine why, and you did some tests that you hoped would help confirm or refute what you were having a hard time believing you were hearing. So, I came on the thread to offer you an alternative theory, one far more plausible than any other, about why all this seemed to happen the way it did. Despite it making perfect sense, you rejected it out of hand even though you can't offer another explanation. Therefore, you must think it less likely that you and your friends are subject to psychological phenomena common to all of us, and more likely that your clock is magic.

That's not only silly, it's arrogant and hypocritical. I wondered above at the seemingly incongruous fact that audiophiles as a group are doubtlessly better-educated and higher-earning than the population as a whole (disclaimer: I can't say I fit that description), yet in some ways many audiophiles behave as if they're more scientifically ignorant and gullible with their money than I believe most typical non-audiophiles would be faced with the same lack of evidence and plausibility.

But now I think I may have gotten it backwards: It's not that audiophiles in the camp of the Clock are carrying on as though they were ignorant and gullible *despite* being better-educated and higher-earning as a group; they're actually prone to acting that way precisely *because* of those things. Guys really *do* think they can hear better than other people; really *do* think they're not subject to the same pitfalls of the mind as the riff-raff; really *do* believe they're somehow exceptional -- more perceptive, more refined, more confident, beyond mere science, beyond questioning, beyond logic, beyond the technology they don't even understand, bold pioneers on an unacknowledged frontier.

Normal standards of reason and scrutiny obviously can't apply to such an elite group, on an aesthetic mission. To question them is to doubt them is to insult them. With their expensive gear and the encouragement (or peer pressure) of this frequently delusionary community of insecure neurotics, they've come to believe they're in a way superior to mere mortals, that simply acquiring a little practice and an esoteric vocabulary means they know and can tell things less sensitve people can't. Well, what it also means, apparently, is that they're prone to losing touch with reality in a particular, peculiar manifestation, on top of all the other baseless superstitions plenty of non-audiophiles, with or without learning and wealth, can tend to believe. And then we ask why the music-loving public at large seems mostly indifferent to being granted the privilege of sharing in the joy of our wonderfully pretentious hobby...

Enjoy your clocks while you can guys, there's no point arguing about it anymore. At least you've stymied Kait in a way I never could have, and for that I thank you.

Nice post Jayboard, glad to make your acquaintance.

I'm just waiting for the day when an audiophile comes on one of these forums and declares how much better his sound is now that he's castrated himself. The result might be grisly, but on the positive side it could help tone down the rancor of these debates some... ;^)

Same thing! ;^)

Nope, apparently the censor (er, moderator) has a sense of humor...

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the "Clever Little Sharp", eh? I'm hearing something just thinking about it...

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.

It's, uh, a little short on specifics...but let's not go there, shall we?

I asked: "Have you done any obvious tests to find out if the IC works as you think? If not, why not?"

You answered: "Who says I have not done this? Who says it has any relevance to others or should convince others?"

Sighhhh....I don't know, Tbg, who says anything? But I'll consider it asked and answered...

Well folks, the "other" thread (Audioari1's) has been closed down. Whaddya say Tgun5, should the lights get doused here as well?...Watch the swingin' doors don't smack us in the ass on the way out! ;^)

It could have been shut down simply because it had run its course, or because the moderator felt there was a risk of engendering bad blood if it kept going (don't know that I agree, but I'm as happy to move on regardless). It wasn't deleted, just closed. I imagine the manufacturer was pleased to have it, all in all, but if he wasn't for some reason, it's not like it's been removed and can't be accessed. A few more posts along these lines, and this thread probably will get closed too.

Tgun5, there is a very simple and predictable explanation for what you describe. Yourself, your son, and your audiobuddy were all psychologically primed to report some kind of audible change between the two trials, and unconscious logic would dictate that if you were making a change, it should be for the better. Just because you didn't actually tell your son or your buddy what exactly you were doing doesn't mean this heightened expectation wasn't being created. It was not a double-blind test, meaning you (the tester) were full of positive expectations when you tested not only yourself, but also your other two subjects, to whom that expectation was subliminally communicated via unconscious cues you provided them. Congratulations, you have done an educational experiment confirming the power of this well-known tesing bias phenomenon. I hope you know, or can imagine, what kind of tests you really need to run in order to discover whether either yourself or anybody else can actually detect an impact on the sound from the clock's presence to a statistical significance. If you do those tests, I think you'll find the effect is infinitely less than the variety you've demonstrated so far. (In fact, even if you just continue doing informal A/B trials involving only yourself, you stand a very good chance of coming to the conclusion that the clock was never doing anything at all for the sound.)

I've got to admit, the "other" threads on this topic notwithstanding, it still absolutely blows my mind that people as educated and high-earning as audiophiles tend to be, can so often fail to display even a basic grasp on such elementary principles of human sense, perception, and behavior related to listening, as well as scientific procedural principles in general...And I find it not a little ironic that a hobby so dependent on applied technology can also be so infected with an inclination toward the anti-scientific, the magical, and the self-delusionary. Are audiophiles really this ignorant and gullible? Are they even more ignorant and gullible than people in general? It seems like they shoudn't be, and I'm pretty sure that once upon a time they weren't, but today? I don't know...

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.

Tgb, this is a perfectly valid point, and one I stipulated way back in my first 'serious' post on the other thread. It of course could be controlled for by having a blind test performed on me.

I personally find Tgun5's report fascinating.

With all due respect, in my opinion his report is most "fascinating" only if you can't think of a reasonable explanation for how it could be so. There is such a reasonable explanation however, and while it's fairly fascinating in its own right (witness what it can cause), like a magic trick explained, it's not quite as fascinating once you know how it's done.

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.

There is a plausible (even if perhaps not highly probable) method of causation for why this might be so. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that there could be some audible effect, good or bad, obtainable from placing any device on the same powerline in parallel with the stereo system. I own a couple of AudioPrism QuietLines which seem to have a small beneficial effect when used in the same way (in my current house -- previously I didn't think I could hear them doing anything). But that the device happens to be a clock is incidental (except for telling the time of course).

Not a bad deal for $10 bucks.

Tarsando, I'm sure I throw away $10 every day in one way or another. A lot of the Beltian treatments are free; surely you can see that the money's not the main point of debate here.

you sound like those people who pooh-pooh evolution as "just a theory".

Onhwy61, ever noticed how the same people who like to chant that aphorism, do not know or grasp the formal scientific -- as opposed to colloquial -- meaning of the word "theory", which they invariably but incorrectly place in opposition to the word "fact"? They therefore fail to understand that one of the disqualifications for teaching "Intelligent Design" as science is due, ironically enough, to the very fact that it doesn't meet the standards of an actual theory, "only" or no...