The scientific journals may not beat a path to your door, Rcprince, but I'd say this was a reasonable stab at trying to learn something. By my count, your subjects got 45 correct (16+5+19+5) and 43 incorrect (6+17+3+17). That's pretty much 50-50, which means it looks like your subjects were just guessing and couldn't really hear any difference.
The fact that one guy scored perfectly means nothing by itself; with 22 subjects, somebody's bound to go 4 for 4 on luck alone. Had you more time, and wanted to be more scientific, you could have repeated the test with that individual, and made it double-blind. My money says he'd have "regressed to the mean," as they say.
Important caveat: One test cannot prove that this clock makes no difference. But quibbling over the weaknesses of this test doesn't prove anything, either. If anyone cares to defend this silly clock, they need to do a better test.
Prediction: The Machina Dynamica Web site will soon brag that, in a careful study, members of the New Jersey Audio Society correctly identified whether the clock was in the room or not more than half the time.
Second prediction: Some people will believe this.
The fact that one guy scored perfectly means nothing by itself; with 22 subjects, somebody's bound to go 4 for 4 on luck alone. Had you more time, and wanted to be more scientific, you could have repeated the test with that individual, and made it double-blind. My money says he'd have "regressed to the mean," as they say.
Important caveat: One test cannot prove that this clock makes no difference. But quibbling over the weaknesses of this test doesn't prove anything, either. If anyone cares to defend this silly clock, they need to do a better test.
Prediction: The Machina Dynamica Web site will soon brag that, in a careful study, members of the New Jersey Audio Society correctly identified whether the clock was in the room or not more than half the time.
Second prediction: Some people will believe this.