Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

Easy now, guys... ;^)

Zaikesman,

"I agree that quick A/B's often don't reveal nearly as much as there is to hear."

None of the threads on Audiogon that I read, including this one, or the Stereophile article on DB testing contain an explanation for your statement that is supported by scientific data. Until some neurobiologist/psychologist becomes interested enough to devise an illuminating experiment, we can only conjecture.

"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 the determination and patience."

I agree with your solution! Perhaps (Oh,Oh. Another conjecture is coming up.), repeated A/Bing results in the formation of new neuronal connnections or the strengthening of weak ones that facilitate the discrimination of finer differences that were perhaps (!) previously masked by "after-images":-)

These two articles are always fun.

The first link is John Atkinson's article in Stereophile (circa 1991) in which he ruminates about the Tice Clock:

http://stereophile.com/miscellaneous/784/index5.html

The second link a letter to the editor (also Stereophile) in which George Tice defends his clock:

http://stereophile.com/miscellaneous/784/index7.html

~ GK

Instruction set at a molecular level, eh? yes, very entertaining indeed. Unfortunately it's complete unspecific childish rubbish.

PM: Not sure if you're playing devil's advocate when you take exception to my statement about the limitations of "quick" A/B's, but maybe I need to clarify: By "quick" I didn't mean the rapidity of the switching itself -- I'll often focus on rather short musical passages when I compare this way. What I was refering to is the total time invested, and by implication number of musical examples, trials, and sessions employed. I think there's a bit of a perception out there that when we talk about A/B-ing, we're talking about a short-cut, whereas when we talk about long-term auditioning, we're talking about taking our time. My point was that time needs to be invested no matter what if you want to get a worthwhile result. Quality A/B-ing is really harder work than long-term auditioning, but it yields solid results in particular respects. And I don't know about scientific studies, but I do know that oftentimes when I start out A/B-ing something where at first any differences might seem vanishingly subtle at best, perservering almost always shows otherwise. The ear/brain needs time to fully suss things out, and repetition (including on different days) for confirmation. It's nothing but gaining familiarity and weeding out false impressions, and you can't do it in 20 minutes at the hi-fi shop.