Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Well said, Bill.

Bill, you missed my post above. The manufacturer does give an explanation over the phone if you call them, but he will not reveal it in print because the explanation is difficult for some people to accept. Here again is an explanation of how the device works:

The CLC is a time travel device. It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music.

Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events.

Well said, Bill.

And quite reasonable too as applied to one's discretion on whether or not to invest time and money on the evaluation of any given product.

Eldartford,

I havn't seen where Zaikesman, or anyone else, has established that the Clever Little Clock runs counter to all laws of science. And for that matter, has science ever truly established itself as the final authority on reality? In real terms it's obvious that it hasn't, in legal terms—I wouldn't know. Obviously a standard of some sort must exist in order to warrant judgment, but science? One would also think that any legitimate legal system must have as its requirement, real victims in order to establish fraudulent practice. Since this product carries a money-back guaranty, where could such victims be found?

Audioari1,

Time travel??? PLEASE explain.

Each individual human had a fundamental adverse problem imposed on their senses when they had their first photograph taken. A photographic image captures the unique identity of the subject of the photograph but imposes a significant temporal (time) asymmetrical pattern. The action of this photograph radically changed the inner symmetry of the senses of the photographed human being. Fortunately, this debilitating adverse condition is reversible.

Does this mean that a person such as myself, someone who's made their living as a professional photographer for more than 30 years, is guilty of "temporal time distortion" of the personalities I've photographed ?

Does this explain the behavior of people I've photographed, such as Arnold Palmer, Vendula, Peter Frampton, Jimmy Page, George Bush, Little Richard, Bunker Hunt, Dan Marino, Robert Plant, Grace Slick, Kathy Ireland, Joe Cocker, Joe Gibbs, Bobby Labonte, Ross Perot, Jimi Hendrix, Boz Skaggs and Eric Clapton ?

I hope there is no penalty for that! I've probably exposed several hundred thousand images over the span of my career and I don't want the government coming after me for what I though was an otherwise honest business.

I wonder too, all that talk about images in the freezer.

Eastman Kodak suggested (about 50 years ago) that keeping valuable images in the freezer would prevent them degrading. There's a chart that lists the "life" of images at various temperatures posted somewhere, (maybe at the Eastman Kodak web site?) Seems like I remember Kodak negative films good for maybe 20 years at normal room temperature and over 100 years at freezing.

So, question is..........does that make Kodak a co-conspirator? And what about my wedding negatives? They have been in the freezer for nearly three decades................does this explain the "chilling" relationship that's developed between my wife and I over the years?

Last but CERTAINLY not least, should our son (note the photographic terms here) ever "develop" a "negative" relationship with his future mate, could Peter Belt and Eastman Kodak be held accountable (financially) in the alimony settlement?

These are serious question for serious times.