Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

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!

PM: Thanks for the clarification, but I understood, I just didn't agree. It's your proposed effect, as well as your analogy about mechanism, that seems out of whack with reality to me. Assuming you're seriously positing this hypothesis as a reason why A/B testing allegedly doesn't work or is misleading, than both cause and effect are fair game for critical examination. If you think I'm taking it too far, it's just that I see the possible extrapolation here -- that your proposed effect implies instantaneous comparison is less reliable than audio memory, and I don't buy that.

For the record, here's how I see this A/B vs. long-term question in its totality: A/B's I think are great for identifying differences, and degrees of change. If performed against a well-known reference they can be a good indicator of relative strengths and flaws (or in the case of bypass testing, absolute strengths and flaws). But that's not always the same as determining which presentation you prefer, and it's never the same as determining whether that preference will ultimately meet your listening needs and expectations. Long-term auditioning I think is necessary (and anyway unavoidable, let's not forget) for determining preferences and ultimate satisfaction. I agree that quick A/B's often don't reveal nearly as much as there is to hear. The solution in my experience is not to throw away A/B's altogether, it's to keep doing them until the finer differences emerge, which they do if you have determination and patience. Once heard, as I said, this method most clearly eludicates differences and degrees of change, and more reliably so than depending on long-term auditioning and audio memory. In practice I prefer to use both methods for their own virtues and not just rely on the latter.

Man, what a relief, I thought you were going to tell us about a double blind test with your girl friend, against another woman and that you were not able to tell the difference. I was going to complement you on finding such an understanding open partner...

Sorry, that product is called the CLG (Clever Little Girlfriend) [Patent Pending]. . . and it will be marketed by me! it will consist of a little very highly modified pendent bejeweled clock that you will let your girlfriend wear, and. . . you know the rest. . .