Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

I feel that I may need to address my comments (above) so that people do not take it the wrong way... specifically:

"Do you need to agree with "any" our articles, reviews, whatever? I see no reason why you should."

What I mean is that should/will everyone (or to what degree... anyone!) agree with any (or all, or any parts of for that matter) the reviews/articles on PFO. Some will, some won't, some to some degree, etc. Same with any other publication.
"What do mean that preamp is great! I heard it and it sucks!" Probably did for you, but obvously not for that person (or others as well). Heck I read a lot of other people's reviews (in PFO and elsewhere) and frequently question either my hearing or that of the person who wrote what they did - gee... it doens't sound like that to me!
As to the BP and IC... well just not enough to make it worthwhile...

"This stuff affects the listener - not one's system. So it does not so much change how things perform/sound, but how one responds to it (what they say)."

Interesting. . . I did not realize the CLC was a MAD (Mood Altering Device). Probably lots safer than Ecstasy. . . and cheaper in the long run. And not at all invasive, unlike James Shatner's Techno. Truly fabulous Science Fiction. . . and it's available now. . .what a deal!

That should have been William Shatner. . . and the device/ book series is 'Tek'.Apologies to all fans of this fine SF cycle.

***Phaser set on STUN for Guido*** ;}

Mockery will get Guido about as far as his insistence on a personal explanation of how things work.