Agree or disagree with the following statement.


Trying to get some input on an issue that a few of us are debating.

Statement:

If you have never listened to any particular component, you can't have an opinion on how it sounds.

Answer:

I don't agree with that. Measurements provide a fairly good indication of how something will sound. That's the beauty of science -- it's not necessary to have first hand experience to make reasonable judgments. You likely disagree and that could be a difference in our background and education."

So, the issue at hand is, can tell how a component sounds without listening to it, and just go on specs? Or, do you have to listen to it, as well, because the specs don't tell the whole story?
zd542
Ironic that the Tice Clock came up in this thread. I've never heard one but would have expressed an opinion on the product if asked. It's a product that begs to be summarily dismissed and that's what I'd have done instinctively. I bet a lot of other folks here share that opinion of the Clock despite never having heard one.

However, after this thread, I can no longer in good conscience state that the Clock is exhibit A in high-end lunacy, a heap of fraudulent BS demonstrating the incredible capacity of audiophiles to be suckered by ANYTHING, and the distilled essence of hucksterism at its absolute worst. In fairness, I can now only say that I'm "extremely sceptical" of the Clock's claimed benefits. Damn, this thread is making life less fun already.
You can have an opinion, just not one I would trust. Too many things measure the same but sound different. PT
"A in high-end lunacy, a heap of fraudulent BS demonstrating the incredible capacity of audiophiles to be suckered by ANYTHING, and the distilled essence of hucksterism at its absolute worst. In fairness, I can now only say that I'm "extremely sceptical" of the Clock's claimed benefits."

The Tice Clock is a parallel line conditioner. What if they put it in an enclosure that looked more like a power product? Most audiophiles have some AC treatment in one form or another. Like I said in my last post, I think it was foolish of Tice to make a clock out of it. Something tells me that if they presented the it as a conditioner instead, people would be more open to consider it.
Wolf, obviously Lars' system was not revealing enough, you don't follow instructions or you guys had too much to drink. As I said you can throw out the negative results. Furthermore, what with Tesla coils, cryogenics, cream electret, quantum parallel line purifiers, things of that nature, you can't assume by looking at something what it does, or if it's been treated.
Geoffkait...we listened, and we (among many others) decided the Tice Clock was nonsense that time (pun alert) proved...as is the term "throwing out the negative results"...there were no "negative results," there were no results at all. Lars was a serious reviewer with amazing systems on hand to review, we weren't drinking, and your results may have differed but "obviously" you weren't there. Parallel line conditioner...man...