I don't know if this has been posted, I read several of the responses but my eyes glazed over.
In regards to the clock specifically, I think this lends itself to a nice blind (not double blind as has been so oft spoken of here) test, not necessarily random, because we won’t have a real control group, but well read on if you have the interest.
Here is the question, does the CLC make an identifiable difference in a listeners perception of music.
Note it does not ask what kind of difference, only if one exists, and if it can be correctly identified.
Second, more specifically, can those active in Audiogon forums, who have already purchased a CLC, and believe they have made a difference in there perception of music, accurately determine when a clock is or is not present. (In the building or listening room, whatever the consensus among those who believe in it feel is needed to free oneself from the clocks effect)
Note, for simplicity’s sake, and because everyone here is so damn committed to the truth, justice, and the audiophile way we rely on the honor system for these tests, both in carrying out the trial (IE no communication with acquaintances, no peaking shaking, trying to "guess" which is which etcetera) and the reporting of findings. Furthermore it is expected that subjects will go out of there way to maintain the trials validity, blinding, and reporting (self censure and the like)
I would hope for about 10 participants who fit the description above.
The test subject asks an acquaintance to place the CLC and another object of equal size and weight (TBD by people in the know about the clock) into two identical brown lunch bags lined with paper towels, folding the tops and single stapling while the subject is not in the room. the acquaintance then leaves the room and the subject enters, places each bag into yet another set of larger identical bag, folds the top, staples it and then marks one with an T (for tails) and the other with H (for heads). These bags are stored off site together, in a safe place where they will not be damaged, opened by friends/family that kind of thing (car maybe?)
The subject then for conducts 13 listening sessions of 2 hours in length. Before each session a coin is flipped and the corresponding bag is brought in from the storage area to the listening room. the listener listens for one hour to whatever music they prefer, on there home system (yes these will be the three major uncontrolled variables) they then bring the bag back to storage and bring the other bag into the listening room for an hour long listen of the same musical selection. It should be encouraged for this study that a specific piece (or set of pieces) from a specific genre that are agreed upon in the forums as adequate are listened to at the end of the first hour and beginning of the second hour for each and every listening session. The listener than makes judgment as to which session contained the CLC. Judgment should be made at the earliest after the first 15 minutes of listening hour 2, and certainly by the conclusion of the session, they will then post there decision for that day on a dedicated Audiogon thread. (a decision is coded as Order H/T or T/H and the Guess as to which bag contains CLC H or T) at the end of reporting for 9 sessions the listener may decide if they wish that they now know which end is up, so to speak and make a distinction, this provides for the notion that the effects may be subtle and cumulative, thus really knowing takes time and uncertainty in the first sessions does not accurately represent the matter being tested. Doing so however means that the remainder of the 4 listening tests will not take place, and they will be marked as the subject’s decision.
At the end of 13 tests (or 9 if the subject has made there absolute decision) the coding (IE which bag had the CLC) is revealed, posted on line, and then a score is computed, for subjects who went the distance it is an average of correct to not correct, we will call correct 1 and incorrect 0. For those with the 9 trials we compute two statistics, one is for the final decision 1 or 0, and another for overall decision (we impute the final 4 trials as all correct or incorrect based on the subjects past decision on trial 9).
The null hypothesis is that subjects will not score significantly different from .5 (IE 50/50 chance). Furthermore we are interested here (since it is difficult for a subject to remove themselves of the bias imparted from a previous listening tests H/T determination) in weather they can predict which bag is which, A score closer to 1 indicates accurate prediction, a score closer to 0 indicates inaccurate prediction. We expect that when averaged as a group the direction of biases due to previous listening would cancel each other, and the group mean would accurately reflect both the ability to hear a difference, and to make the correct judgment based on that distinction. IE if the group scores 0.5 than we conclude that no difference exists, and the CLC is a load of BS. If the group scores a >0.5 (p<0.05, or whatever threshold you like, but this is the most widely used one) we conclude that a difference exists, and that it can be correctly attributed to the actual product. If the opposite occurs than a difference exists, but that the effects thought to be associated with the CLC are actually associated with its absence.
Additionally there is a better way to do this, which is for the subject to leave the room after double bagging and shuffling the bags order, and have the friend re-enter to mark the bottom of the bags with an H or T. in the previous description it would be the friend who flipped the coin once at hour one, and again at hour two. The bag would be brought in and placed in a covered oblique container, and the subject would not be allowed to be near the fiend while all of this was happening. At the beginning of hour two the subject removes themselves to a secluded area, while the friend takes the bag back to the storage area, flips a coin and then takes whichever bag back with them to be placed in the room again. This complicates reporting as a friend would have to keep track of the actual H or T, and then would report it separately to the forum after all sessions were complete and the listener had made each decision. Of course, then the reveal and the analysis, the coding for which would be modified appropriately.
Cheers,
Windzilla |
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. |
Ooops, sorry, the OP does not link to the "premium" clock. My mistake. Gotta put a sticker on myself for enhanced performance. |
On the site for the clever little money maker model, which the OP also posts, they state that the clock does NOT have any effect on the sound produced (or something to that effect). So, the only real explanation for a perceived difference is called P L A C E B O. Wonder if they'd take a placebo payment for one (I’ve got some Monopoly money which causes no real effect at the bank). I could use a clock in my music room. |
Any idea why it was nuked? Who complained to the moderators? The doubters, the converted, or the manufacturer? |
Who shut it down? ...The imposters of open discourse! Many of those who submit and the few that edit.Tom |
Given the level of discourse, would anyone notice were it terminated? |
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's, uh, a little short on specifics...but let's not go there, shall we? |
Z, is not my answer obvious? |
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... |
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: 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. |
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. |
(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. |
Nope, apparently the censor (er, moderator) has a sense of humor... |
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). |
Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the "Clever Little Sharp", eh? I'm hearing something just thinking about it... |
Zaikesman, you may have a point. Once upon a time castration was effectively employed to make young men sing like Angels, and was only abrogated by Don Lorenzo Perosi at the Sixtine Chapel Choir in not so distant 1936.
Perhaps the same could be used to make us hear the sounds of Heaven, or at least that of the Spheres--through the CLC of course. |
|
Actually, castration might 'tone up' the debate! |
in some cases properly done castration procedure could clear ones sinuses, thus bettering ones hearing |
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... ;^) |
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. |
Just like we all think we're superior judges of character (and in our judgment, other people just are not as reasonable as we are) Similarly, not sure I've ever met anyone who thinks they don't have a great sense of humor, are not a good driver, or don't know themselves well. |
Nice post Jayboard, glad to make your acquaintance. |
Tbg said 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. That's not very relevant. It's reasonable and scientific when assessing any new component put into a system, whether it's a $10 alarm clock or a $3,000 DAC, to start off by assuming the new item won't make any difference, positive or negative. It's the job of the new component to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is wrong. That's a fair approach, and it's the one Tgun says he started out with. Were medical studies to suggest to subjects that this medicine will have no effect, it would minimize its effect. ?? I hope we would want to know this information about the so-called medicine. Are you suggesting that it's picking nits to draw a distinction between a placebo and a real drug? 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. Whoa. You've made a big leap here. The question is whether this little clock makes a difference or not. That's what the argument is about. You sound as if you're saying that the possibility that current scientific knowledge might not be able to explain a given observation means that the observation was validly made. That may be expedient, but it's hardly logical. science is incomplete and ... most advances come from anomalies in observations of reality. Accepting for the sake of argument your assertion, don't forget that these observed anomalies are outcomes of the scientific method. (I hope I have not taken you out of context.) One starts out with a specific hypothesis and under as controlled conditions as possible (as in an experiment) tests that hypothesis. Tgun's listening session, though a typical audiophile good time (including the companion who has better ears than one's own, the companion who has no reason to be agreeable, etc.), was not a controlled trial. Let's not dismiss science as inadequate before we've even attempted to apply it. I object to your dragging science, an innocent bystander here, in as a whipping boy for your argument. On the other hand, I didn't have much objection to Tgun's original post, and he certainly doesn't owe it to any of us to do a double-blind test or take any extra measures. I find the subject of his subjective listening session pretty outlandish, but what the heck. It's Audiogon. Zaikesman said 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; Sure! Just like we all think we're superior judges of character (and in our judgment, other people just are not as reasonable as we are), when in fact we're probably all below average. LOL |
Mr. Kait, You continue to steer this discussion into the deepest realms of scientific theory, masking the true discussion in the veil of other true scientist’s conceptual discussions. I too have read most everything published by Hawkings, Einstein, Penrose, Feyman, Kant and the like. These men are not discussing unsubstantiated products; they are discussing highly advanced mathematics and physics, most of which is well beyond your Bachelor of Science degree. You have often tried to mask your products in these men’s scientific discussions, but really sir, can you stop! The further to attempt to cloud the subject, the clearer it is to some of us that nothing you are providing has any factual basis. It is you who has continued to push this discussion to places you clearly have very limited knowledge. You application of finite scientific thought into a product you have built is simply the work of an amateur. If you do wish to explain the actual “science” behind the clock, IC, pebbles with your own words, not masked within scientific discussion that has no bearing on the product you are selling, I invite you to do so. This would allow for a true discussion. If you continue to chose to run from the truth, than we will continue to call you on it. Discussion of quantum physics, space/time continuum, forth and fifth dimensions theory, relativity and the like is fascinating but not pertinent here. At least until you show me the tie to the aforementioned topics. I have read every site you have sent us to, both hear and in you’re so called “white paper” of the IC. You have provided nothing but fragmented thought and misinterpretations of scientific theory. Please for your own sake, stop before you make more of a fool of yourself. As to the ethics of your business… Below is the final paragraph of a truly interesting site you sent us to, now please explain how this well written summary has any baring on... Adapting Kant to quantum mechanics and Relativity requires a couple of modifications: First, that things-in-themselves be seen in terms of the Wave Function, as the sum of all possible histories that would exist apart from observation; and second, that the real physical space of phenomenal objects is not necessarily the space that we are able to imaginatively visualize (as discussed in The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry). Making both of these modifications together would require that space neither exists among things-in-themselves as such nor is merely something imposed idiosyncratically by the human brain. This would require that the nature of consciousness, with its attendant phenomenal objects, be part of the structure of reality and not just a psychologistic adaptation in the human species. The nature of Kant's metaphysics is certainly open to that possibility, even if it was a question that he himself did not approach asking. Friesian theory is a bit closer, although the Friesian theory of the knowledge contained in human reason is commonly misunderstood, even by Karl Popper, as merely psychologistic, which of course it is not. But Friesian theory itself might need to make a distinction between the true knowledge that space exists in phenomenal objects, and a merely human limitation in how that space can be visualized. |
Huh? Sorry Mr. Kait, you are the one who cited Dr. penrose, not I. what does the extant failure of machines to duplicate the human mind as yet got to do with your products? Unless of course you asserted--quite correctly I should say--that your devices work in one's mind only. . . which Mr. Zaikesman and I would wholeheartedly agree with, and for which there is no need to cite Penrose for corroboration. Once again, I fear you are using misdirection, flawed logic, bibliographical references out of context and overall obfuscation to promote your novelty products. |
Guidocorona - don't take me quite so literally; don't think you will find a sentence or a paragraph or a chapter in any of the references I mentioned that will answer any questions directly regarding CLC.
I think the basic point Penorse makes is that computers - even with A.I. and other advances - cannot duplicate the human brain/mind.
Here is some discussion of the Penrose book, including comments by Stephen Hawking (IMO this is not easy reading):
http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm
GK |
Mr Kait, I have Penrose's fine lay book in front of me. Besides some mild allowances to new age physics in the titles of some subsections, clearly requested by the editors for mass marketing reasons, would you be so kind to point out / quote which sections/passages corroborate the new age point of view? Furthermore, I was not aware that this wonderful and popular volume constituted a theoretical foundation of new age physics. |
...having said this, I contend that CLC/CLF and the various other devices CLF...? hmm, is that the Clever Little F***? How much does that cost? ;-> |
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. |
Guidocorona - one need look no further than Sheldrake's (PhD biology, Cambridge) The Presence of the Past, Roger Penrose's (Nobel winner for physics and world class mathematician) The Emporer's New Mind (quantum physics of the mind), Bohm's concepts and P.W.B.'s Electronics' concepts/theories of how sound is affected by objects and materials totally unrelated to the audio signal.
If one is prepared to look.
BTW the Clever Little Clock will kick the CLS's butt. :-)
gk |
TBG, you may have a point, in that significant bodies of math accompanied paradigmatic shifts mostly in those sciences where mathematics was already applied, e.g. Physics and Astronomy, from the copernican/Galilean revolution to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In other natural sciences, such as biology and geology, paradigmatic shifts preceeded any mathematical modelling by a significant amount of time. having said this, I contend that CLC/CLF and the various other devices even vaguely related to them seem to fall in the former category, especially considering that they often seek legitimacy in physical phenomena, such as particle entanglement, multi-dymensional geometries, Doppler effects, coherent light emission, quantum state cloning (a physical impossibility according to my admittedly limited understanding of commonly accepted peer-reviewed physics), and the likes. The non mainstream devices created for our beloved audio high end seem to point towards a new non orthodox physics, often derived from hypothesised macroscopic implications of sub-atomic phenomena. I am looking forward to some seminal and rigorous body of work which can explain their unique and apparently non causative behavior. |
reading all these strange topics sometimes i wish we could read more about clever little audiophiles... |
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 ;^) |
Actually, the money is the main point. If, in fact, this is a mind trick and I have been fooled, I have proven that a company can downright lie and charge $200 for something that makes no difference other than through mind games. If this is the case, I have also proved that they can get away with it because we hear what we want to hear. Experiment successful!
On the other hand, if this thing really does make a difference, it can also be heard with a $10 variety clock as well as a $200 variety tweak clock. You just saved $180. Experiment successful!
I never said that this made a gigantic difference. It does make a pleasant change for the better, whether actual or not. I believe I heard and hear what I hear with this thing. Is the difference worth $200 if it is real - NOPE. That means it is certainly not worth $200 if it is percieved. If it is perceived and not actual, it is still worth $10. Certainly! I have paid more for a bottle of wine. Experiment successful!
Now to be serious. This particular tweak is about the money for many reasons. I'm happy with my $10 purchase. I'm not sure whether anyone who spent $200 is happy with their purchase as no one has come forward. Maybe for good reason.
When I get the chance, I will do a double blind test so that this debate can be put to rest. And if there is no difference, I will again admit I was wrong. At that point, I will just be reverting back to my original thought that the clock was bull. Then I will probably keep the clock for its wonderful time keeping ability! We will see.
|
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... |
Zaikesman: WOW, where do it start? I feel the need to answer your questions, but I feel that you have read my previous answers and are not absorbing them. Maybe I’m assuming that my explanations are complete enough and they aren’t. In either case, I’ll do my best to qualify what I previously said. 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. I said this (that it was bull) to make it clear that I expected not to be writing a report at all. To write a report saying the clock didn’t work would have proven nothing other than to solidify my own feelings on the subject. After reading what little information and theory the CLC is based on, I also had a suspicion that there was no proprietary engineering being done to the CLC. 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. This would still not have proven whether the CLC actually works, but it would have closed the door on this subject for me. Yes, the cost of $10 was the incentive in giving it a try. I would never have tried the $200 CLC because I WASN”T convinced of the theory. I still don’t understand it. I also said previously that I was an open-minded individual. The combination of this and the $10 led to the test. For $10, I really don’t have a reason to hypnotize myself into an improvement. Besides, I could have returned it if the $10 was needed for Starbuck’s later. Again, your assertion points to some mental pre-determination as to whether each tweak will work or not before I try them. If this is the case, the clock should not have worked, yet it did. I really don’t understand what is difficult to understand here. Let me ask you something Tgun5: Why is it so hard for you to admit to being human? I believe that this whole exercise proves that I am human. I learned some time ago that our minds do not comprehend or understand most of what exists in the universe. I have no problem admitting that. I also know that since scientific and psychological theories are a product of the human mind, by nature they could be inherently flawed. This is a discussion that does not belong on an audio forum. The best argument for the fact that I am human is that I admitted that I was wrong about the clock. This is more than I can say for many who post here. 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 Yes, I do believe that some people hear better than others and this includes audiophiles and unfortunately, musicians. You admit you are a musician so you must know that there are people who CAN sing and those BELIEVE they can sing. The difference between the two groups is that the ones who THINK they can sing can’t hear themselves. Then there are the ones that CAN sing that can’t hear whether they are flat or sharp. My experience is that many audiophiles do not hear as well as others. Probably to the same degree and ratio as good musicians to average musicians. The bad musicians equate to the individuals that hear a good system and wonder why we are audiophiles to begin with. I believe most audiophiles have the ability to hear for the most part otherwise they wouldn’t appreciate the hobby to begin with. We call great singers and musicians “trained”. Trained audiophiles know what to listen for and how to trust what there are hearing to get the results. 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 You have not insulted me by questioning me. Some of these statements are insults, but I forgive you. I do not believe I am superior to “mere mortals”, nor am I insecure as you suggest. I am just as flawed as the rest of us. However, I am absolutely secure in my hearing and the findings on the clock. 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. This would be no different than being blessed with the ability to sing, which I cannot. In any case, these are God-given talents. According to your philosophy that everything needs to have a scientific explanation, God could not exist. Although unscientifically proven, this fact is undeniable, unarguable, and irrefutable in my mind. I guess this also proves I’m human. I certainly am glad to be a human that is sure that Jesus died to forgive my sins. In any case, I thought my findings would be fun for some to experiment with and would somehow enhance the hobby. I’m glad that it made a difference for at least one member - Tarsando. This makes taking all the heat worthwhile. I didn’t expect to be attacked to this degree, although one never knows here on Audiogon. The real fact that has been forgotten or mentioned is the impact my findings have on the CLC. I don’t know that there is any point to take these arguments further as we are very far apart in our thinking and neither will persuade the other. If you do choose to take this further, I would be curious whether you have a list of components, parts, or tweaks in your mind that would, will, or do change the sound and to what degree. In other words, do you believe our “minds” will not allow us to really hear a change in preamps, amps, or speakers? Or whether this starts to be minimal with cartridges, tonearms, and wires? Can you discern the difference in capacitors, diodes, and resistors? Your arguments may in fact challenge whether audio component designers really can hear what they are trying to bring to market and whether these issues affect their design. It also brings the question to whether all audio designers do blind listening tests before deciding each component they use in state-of-the-art designs. I think we all know the answer to that. At what point IS the designer fooled by his own expectations and the hearing/psychology involved? Depending on your thoughts, this hobby may not match your ideals - or at least cause you frustration in dealing with passionate audio idiots like me. |
unless of course, this upcoming new age shift is sooooo 'shifty' ....remove the alphabets' Sixth letter from above sentence.... ;) |
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, I am looking forward to the mountain of mathematics to go with the CLC/CLS scientific paradigm shift. . . as far as I know, every time there has occurred such a scientific paradigm shift we have seen an extremely significant mathematical body to go with it. . . I am looking for Geoff Kait, and the various other new agers to bring forth their mathematical body of work and submit it to peer review. . . unless of course, this upcoming new age shift is sooooo 'shifty' that no math is required. |
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. |
Guidocorona, very well put. To Theaudiotweak's point we are bathed in electromagnetic fields, although I think the digital point is irrelevant. Electromagnetic fields are simply electromagnetic fields.
Tbg, you sound like those people who pooh-pooh evolution as "just a theory".
My neighbors just installed a Grohe Ladylux (stainless steel) kitchen faucet last week. My system now sounds slightly more liquid. Not having to posit let alone demonstrate a plausible causal link opens the door to pure nonsense. After all, doesn't you system sound worse when Mars and Venus are in in conjunction? Mine does! Well at least I believe it does. |
Guidocorona, speechless but yours is just an alternative hypothesis nevertheless. |
Back in the early 80's Enid Lumely a writer for the Absolute Sound wrote an article or two that anything digital in the listening room even if it was not wired to the system had a negative effect on the music.Those beliefs were hotly debated at that time, and that writer fell from the bookshelf. So skip ahead to the present where most everything has something digital inside. Certainly our rooms are filled with a digital brew of Rf backfed and forcefed and a similar controversy over something digital in ones environment is taking its place again in the present time.Tom |
Really folks, do you mean to tell me that you did not have a digital clock within 100 feet of your system prior to being infected by the CLS bug and taking a trip to Walmart? Do you mean to say that the clocks in your microwave, convection oven, stove, toaster, fridge, security system, VCR, DVD clock radio, alarm clock on your night stand, pocket alarm in your brief case, your watch, your better half digital watch, your kid's watches, your computer clocks, your car/SUV/minivan clock. . . are somehow all differently ineffective and you need to take a trip to Walmart to find one at random that will for sure improve your system? The notion is just so bizarre to leave me speechless! |
I suspect that the difference between those that believe in these 'irrational' tweaks and those that don't, is probably the same as those folks who can be hypnotized and those that can't. The effect is 'real' for the hypnotized person and good for them! For me, however, knowing that a person can be hypnotized, is not useful information, since I am of the 'non-hypnotized' type and the 'hypnotizable' persons' experiences are not relevant nor repeatable with me. I do envy, however, those who are 'hypnotizable' since the seem to have more experiences, real or not! :)
Bob P. |
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. |
