Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

To All - Let's go back in time to 1991 when Stereophile published Thomas J. Norton's review of the Tice Clock, a product that bears more than a slight resemblance to the CLC (or the CLS for that matter) - i.e., a digital clock. As one might expect, the Tice Clock was heavily drubbed by audiophiles and some reviewers of the time (and currently).

Unlike the CLC, the Tice Clock plugs into the wall outlet and supposedly operates by influencing how the electrons flow in conductors. Now, whether or not that theory is true I can't say, and have no experience w/ the Tice Clock myself. More importantly, I'm not suggesting the Tice Clock operates at all like the CLC. However, the hoopla that surrounded the Tice Clock way back when certainly bears a strong similarity to that of the CLC in many ways -- if I do say so myself :-). Here is the link to Norton's review of the Tice Clock:

http://stereophile.com/miscellaneous/784/index4.html

GK, Machina Dynamica

Zaikesman, Most analogies break down when analyzed at fine enough detail. Your interpretation of my analogy took it further than what I intended. I suggested the limits of my analogy by the last sentence of my post above. If the brain does not instantaneously wipe itself clean after each experience, then what remains is what I refer to as the "after-image". As in the case of the visual experience, the after-image is subtle enough not to incapacitate one's functioning within a constantly changing environment (as your comments suggest), but may be enough to cloud subtle subjective experiences. Most of us have had the experience of a song or a tune being 'burnt-in' into our brain that "we can't get it out of our mind". Even such a stronger "after-image" doesn't disable our ability to function. Perhaps some neuro-biologist reading this thread could shed some light.

Zaikesman,

I think that your proposed test of 3 clocks is just as flawed. This is because all 3 clocks will look visually identical.

Suppose something else for a moment. Let's say I take a Boulder 2008 ($40K) phono pre-amp chasis, take out the electronics, and replace them with an NAD $150 phono stage. Then I will put it into your system without you knowing I changed the inards. I would bet the dickens that you will sit there in amaziment telling me without end how wonderful the sound is. Inevitably, the visual impression has a very strong affect on perceived hearing.

This is also similar to another effect that has been demonstrated time and again. If I take a $5 bottle of wine and pour its contents into a bottle that belongs to a $300 wine and serve it to you, you will probably think it is the best and most complex wine you have ever tasted.

I think it is clear that the psychological anticipation of the event is more then half the battle.

Zaikesman, the test with your girlfriend does not have the visual element taken out as I had explained above, since obviously she was not blind folded. And the result of her conclusion, only further proves my point, she preferred the cheaper pre-amp.

It is also entirely possible, that if you had the $6500 preamp and a $200 preamp side by side, and they both looked visually impressive without her knowing the cost of either, that she would have prefered the $200 piece!