2. misc-audio
  3. 1140752558

The Clever Little Sharp

After following the clever little clock thread to its current uselessness, I had come the conclusion that the whole concept was total nonsense. The fact that this product’s effect can’t be explained in literature and is, in fact, almost secretive leaves me suspicious. But like many curious audiophiles, I just couldn’t resist doing an experiment.

Before I go further, I must say that I was willing to chalk my findings up to a small personal victory not meant for publication. This is primarily because I didn’t want the negative responses pointing at the fact that I was either crazy or was hearing things that were self-induced.

Over lunch last week, I decided to go to the local discount store and purchase a battery operated clock. I proceeded to the clock counter and proceeded to make a $9.95 cent purchase into a major buying decision. Battery operated w/cord?, LCD or LED display?, black or silver case?, atomic auto setting?, etc. etc. There were probably more than 15 models between $7.99 and $14.99. I ended up with the Sharp LCD atomic clock w/day & date for $9.95. I have no idea whether any of these features are detrimental to the end result, and I doubt if I will ever buy 12 different battery clocks to find out.

I waited for the clock to automatically set itself and set it on a computer table in the room. While I played a few selections waiting for the system to totally warm-up, I thought I noticed a more palatable nature to the sound – actually more musical and warm. There you go, I thought, hearing a change because you want to. I left the room and took the clock outside and laid it on the concrete patio behind my home. About ten minutes later, I returned to listening and darn if something wasn’t missing. This is beyond crazy. I put the experiment on hold.

Later that evening, my son came over for a visit. He is no audiophile, but has the virtue of having 26 year old ears. He has called changes in my system in the past with relative ease and I consider his hearing above par. I asked him to sit in the sweet spot and evaluate if there was a change. I played a selection from Dan Siegel’s Inside Out CD for a reference and then brought the clock in and hid it behind the computer monitor. I requested that he keep his eyes closed and did not let on to what, if anything, I was doing. Midway through the same selection, he smiled and asked “what did you do?” I asked “Why, what are you hearing?” He went on to say that the midrange opened up and is more airy and the bass is more defined, tighter and deeper. I must admit that I thought I was hearing the same thing. I laughed at this point and said to wait until we do this a couple more times. After running back between the patio and listening room a few more times, I finally showed him what I was bringing into the room. His reaction was NOooo! NO WAY!

Even after this, I though that there is no chance that I will post this to Audiogon. It’s like seeing a UFO (not that I have) and trying to convince someone who hasn’t that it is real. Must be a blimp, right?

I decided to enlist my long-time audio friend Jim J. to see if my son and I were both crazy. Now, his ears are variety 1945 (or so – he won’t admit his age) but they are golden by audiophile standards. I proceeded to pull the same trick on him, not letting on to what if anything I did. I will tell you from past experience, he will call the session exactly like he hears it. This means that he will also not say that there is an improvement or any change if it simply is not there. He is as close to the perfect candidate that I would find or trust.

A similar thing happened, but rather than a smile, it was a sinister grin. “What are you doing?” He said. “What is that thing you went and got? It isn’t radio-active is it” he joked. “Well it is atomic” I said as I laughed. COME ON, what is the deal with this? I joking replied that it was top secret, but admitted I really have no idea. What did you hear? He replied that the overall openness and air around each instrument had improved as well as a cleaner, more defined presentation.

I’m sure that many will think we are all crazy, but I thought the open-minded would appreciate the information. I have no idea why it works, nor what the difference is with the supposedly modified clever little clock. I do know that for $9.95, a stock Sharp will enhance your listening. And if it doesn’t, return it to Walmart.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
128x128tgun5
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Tgun5, there is a very simple and predictable explanation for what you describe. Yourself, your son, and your audiobuddy were all psychologically primed to report some kind of audible change between the two trials, and unconscious logic would dictate that if you were making a change, it should be for the better. Just because you didn't actually tell your son or your buddy what exactly you were doing doesn't mean this heightened expectation wasn't being created. It was not a double-blind test, meaning you (the tester) were full of positive expectations when you tested not only yourself, but also your other two subjects, to whom that expectation was subliminally communicated via unconscious cues you provided them. Congratulations, you have done an educational experiment confirming the power of this well-known tesing bias phenomenon. I hope you know, or can imagine, what kind of tests you really need to run in order to discover whether either yourself or anybody else can actually detect an impact on the sound from the clock's presence to a statistical significance. If you do those tests, I think you'll find the effect is infinitely less than the variety you've demonstrated so far. (In fact, even if you just continue doing informal A/B trials involving only yourself, you stand a very good chance of coming to the conclusion that the clock was never doing anything at all for the sound.)

I've got to admit, the "other" threads on this topic notwithstanding, it still absolutely blows my mind that people as educated and high-earning as audiophiles tend to be, can so often fail to display even a basic grasp on such elementary principles of human sense, perception, and behavior related to listening, as well as scientific procedural principles in general...And I find it not a little ironic that a hobby so dependent on applied technology can also be so infected with an inclination toward the anti-scientific, the magical, and the self-delusionary. Are audiophiles really this ignorant and gullible? Are they even more ignorant and gullible than people in general? It seems like they shoudn't be, and I'm pretty sure that once upon a time they weren't, but today? I don't know...
tgun5's avatar
tgun5 OP
138 posts
 
Zaikesman, I have read explanations like yours many times, so this phenomenon is certainly not new or unknown to me. However, your explanation assumes many things.

It assumes that every tweak we try will produce a change for the better if our subconscious decides this prior to listening to it. This is simply not the case. I have tried numerous tweaks over the years and many have produced zero to very negative results. This means that with each tweak, I have subconsciously predetermined whether there will be no change, a negative change, or positive change. This is ridiculous.

It assumes that every one has been gifted by God with the same ability to hear. If we were all blessed the same, there wouldn’t be enough Olympic gold medals to go around.

It also assumes that you know the people involved, which you don’t. You explain that my excitement and subliminal cues affected the outcome. I can assure you that Jim J. is less interested in agreeing with me and more interested in telling the truth as he hears it. Over the past 30 years, we have used each other to check and verify what each of our systems is doing. Many times, the conclusion is negative, not positive. If anything, I have learned over the years not to show excitement for Jim actually enjoys bursting my bubble.

Do you really believe that I wanted to report that a stinking clock improved the sound? I find this concept ridiculous and it quite frankly, it may make me to appear to be an idiot – and in so many words, you point this out.

If you believe that differences in sound at the upper level are dependant upon applied technology, I wouldn’t disagree. I also point out that the most tweaks are applied or designed using a scientific concept, yet this does not mean all variances within the concept affect the sound equally. Take cable risers for example. The concept is that raising the cables off the floor reduces the amount of static transferred from carpet. Makes sense, but different brands of ceramic risers sound dramatically different. This evidently has to do with the type of glaze used and its RFI/EMI rejection. Should glaze make a large audible difference in cable risers? Probably not, but it does. And risers of acrylic, cardboard or wood also sound different. Regardless of the reason, this is where the “magical” part of this hobby comes into play. To the average person, this would sound crazy and certainly make no sense. To the audiophile who has taken the time to compare, it is fact.

Do I believe the clock is magical? Absolutely not. But like the glaze, some things produce results that are beyond expectation and understanding. Besides, the clever little clock supposedly does operate under some scientific theory that I previously decided was bunk. It apparently is not.

I believe this is less about a double blind test and more about your desire to disprove and argue. I think you may be in the wrong hobby. Or maybe you aren’t. You might consider opening a company that offers double-blind testing services to audiophiles, making sure their methods conform to the limits of science.

I have offered a cheap experiment that anyone who wants to take the time and effort can do. If you don’t want to spend the $9.95, have predetermined it will not work, cannot trust your hearing, or think your system does not have the resolution capability, simply do not do it. It’s pretty simple.

As far as this clock, I trust both my hearing and Jim’s and our ability to report the differences accurately. This is part of the hobby and knowing what and how to listen to improve the sound. I simply do not need a double blind test to verify this. My sound is proof of this fact.
tarsando
578 posts
 
Zaikesman...Given that music itself can be (non-)scientific and magical (for sure) if not 'self delusionary', is it any wonder that those of us with an interest in music might have inclinations along the same lines? I bought a clock yesterday, it seemed to make a difference--then I noticed that my digital phase switch was in the opposite of its normal position. So I switched that and the sound seemed regular, except, after a few minutes, I thought, geez this IS better. Personally, if it's a delusion, I'm glad the object of my delusion is a $10 item that a fellow audiogoner 'discovered' and not some $10 -$100 thing that a specialty company has touted and marked up to $100-$1,000 or more. This is, after all, a hobby, and if there is no fun left in the hobby, it's time to find another one, IMHO. Good work Tgun5!
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Good one Z-man.

Now let's see what someone who has more or less an opposite view of things has to say. This link is an article by and about Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize winner for quantum physics:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PWprofile.html
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,234 posts
 
Tarsando, from your posts it seems you've been very influenced by the price of the tweak. Obviously value is an important component in any buying decision, but it is also just another element that can unduly influence your decidedly non-scientific listening experience.

Geoffkait, Mr. Josephson is concerned about the blinding effect of orthodoxy in physics research. Are you in any way insinuating that there is research behind the CLC? If so, please submit to journals for peer review. Only then would anything in Mr. Josephson's article have even the slightest relationship to the CLC.
More to discover