Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Tvad, is your comment about trying 3, 4, or 5 and reporting back a put down or do you really want what Wellfed has done?

Having tried and noted that the Quantum Resonance products seem to work, even though I have never gotten a real explanation as to how, I feel compelled, as a wide eyed optimist as it relates to audio improvements to respond.
Imagine trying to explain (though they haven't yet tried to prove in any notable scientific manner how this works) the broadcast of a radio transmission, back in the middle ages--even x-ray technology to those not yet exposed (no pun here).
There are many more things beheld by us yet not understood or quantified by our current level of understanding or interpretation of physics. Hell, we're still working on 'dark matter' string theory and 11 diminsions.(For that matter, at this seemingly late date, we, about 75 years after discovering Pluto, find it's mate just beyond-- what makes us have the audacity to presume that we can understand what these items do, or don't do?
What if it works and even those who made it don't fully understand why?
Supposedly, the person who designed the Quantum product, refuses to openly discuss why it works, presumably for proprietary reasons. I was told that his background is in Biomed--and that he is capable of turning a dead, fetid pool of scum on a farm, into a thriving ecosystem with some of his other work. True? I don't know. Stories always seem to surround people like this with no full explanation.
The solution here is a 'blind' A/B. Why not a challenge of listeners to quantify this device--if it works, who wouldn't purchase this kind of improvement for $200.?
I would-- so, how about a challenge?
Anybody game? Especially those selling it--we all WANT to believe, give us a reason, not just compelling side statements.

Larry

I'm copying below excerpts from a positive feedback review in a blind test *without* the CLC, from www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm:

Well, in a word, everything sounded bad. I was surprised at how awful things sounded.... ....Sadly, this song sounded the worst of all. Tinny and bright, and did not produce the chills down my spine that it usually does. ... I literally cringed ...sounded better when I was outside the listening room .... I turned it off completely, and that is my favorite track on the disc.

ok, so I'm supposed to believe that in their audiophile system the music was completely unbearable without the CLC, but when the CLC was brought into the room it sounded glorius. This defies logic and common sense - presumably she had been enjoying music in their home system before this blind test, but suddenly it became unbearable just before the CLC was brought into the house for a test? The way they staged their test also lacks credibility - why not do a true blind test? Sounds like complete nonsense.

So... the implications of this are: I can't trust audiophile magazines and I can't trust what other people report hearing. I can only trust my own ears. The problem is that I have very limited opportunities to audition components in my home, and it requires some expense and effort to arrange auditions. If I can't trust reviews then I don't have much basis for deciding when to go to the effort to arrange an audition. IMO this taints the entire highend audio community, I'll always have to wonder who is full of BS and who might actually be doing something worthwhile.

Tonnesen, they do offer a 30 trial, I think.

I too tend to not trust reviews, but I also don't trust negative reviews of tweaks that I know do good things.

Life is tough without a trusted dealer to lead you, but we cannot go home.