Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Zaikesman, I think that Miklorsmith made a very valid point. In fact, I was part of an even more baffling experiment. This was a system with VTL monoblocks, a VTL Reference preamp, and Wilson speakers. Everyone was floored by how amazing the VTL pre-amp sounded, I had to agree, it sounded pretty damn good. Then someone in the group made a comment that listeners would not be able to detect in a blind listening test when the VTL was in our or out of the system.

So we set up an experiment substituting the VTL preamp with a $200 NAD preamp while people listened blindfolded. Not a SINGLE person in the group was able to consistently tell which was the VTL or the NAD. One is around $10,000 and the other is $200.

This brings up the inevitable conclusion that listening evaluation is probably extremely flawed in these types of tests no matter how you slice it or dice it.

I think the more proper way to evaluate equipment is to put in a component and the listen to it for several days and then make the switch. For some reason, rapid A/B switching doesn't allow the brain to make the adjustments quickly enough.

Otherwise, how would you explain these results?

Audioari1

This brings up the inevitable conclusion that listening evaluation is probably extremely flawed in these types of tests no matter how you slice it or dice it.

I think the more proper way to evaluate equipment is to put in a component and the listen to it for several days and then make the switch. For some reason, rapid A/B switching doesn't allow the brain to make the adjustments quickly enough.

Otherwise, how would you explain these results?

Boy do I ever agree with that!!

Long term listening is the only way to achieve satisfaction with one's system. Quick switching is not how we enjoy music and certainly not how to decide on the equipment either.

This does not imply my acceptance or denial of the ability of the Clever Little Clock. At this point I cannot tell who is in favor of it and who is having fun in this thread.

Albert,
You want some fun? How about trying the CLC "Clever Little Carp" You mount it on the wall and everytime you walk by it sings Patricia Barber songs - thereby recalibrating your ears prior to a listening session. I would suggest you introduce to your listening group prior to your normal Tuesday night sessions.

Listen Slipknot, Patricia Barber songs "Carp" on me enough, even without the "Billy Bass' Replica (or is that Trout Mask Replica?) hanging on the wall.

Joeylawn36111, Audioari1, and Albert, I could not agree more. This is why I suggested that such present or not present tests may not validly assess whether the CLC is working or not.

Zaikesman, you are assuming that no one can hear a difference, but I am assuming that some can hear a difference. Certainly, some do say they hear a difference. With a small sample where some hear a difference, as I see it, you will not be able to dismiss the issue of whether your sample is unusual but comes from a population that cannot hear a difference. With a larger sample again where some hear a difference, it will be very improbable that the population cannot hear a difference. Statistical significance would make it more difficult to support your position. I am sorry if these ideas are difficult to convey, but they are the basis statistical significance and dealing with type one errors.

Given what I say above, a small sample with some hearing a difference could be dismissed as sampling error. A large sample would, however, lead to the conclusion that people in general can hear a difference.

Remember also that you think that there is no difference with the CLC present or absent, but you are only testing whether people can hear a difference. Even if they don't hear a difference, there may be one, or if they do hear a difference, there may be none. Unlike a coin where all would agree on heads and tails, this probably would not be the case in what you propose.

Overall, again I would state that your proposed tests do not resolve the issue.