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
tgun5's avatar
tgun5 OP
138 posts
 
Actually, the money is the main point. If, in fact, this is a mind trick and I have been fooled, I have proven that a company can downright lie and charge $200 for something that makes no difference other than through mind games. If this is the case, I have also proved that they can get away with it because we hear what we want to hear. Experiment successful!

On the other hand, if this thing really does make a difference, it can also be heard with a $10 variety clock as well as a $200 variety tweak clock. You just saved $180. Experiment successful!

I never said that this made a gigantic difference. It does make a pleasant change for the better, whether actual or not. I believe I heard and hear what I hear with this thing. Is the difference worth $200 if it is real - NOPE. That means it is certainly not worth $200 if it is percieved. If it is perceived and not actual, it is still worth $10. Certainly! I have paid more for a bottle of wine. Experiment successful!

Now to be serious. This particular tweak is about the money for many reasons. I'm happy with my $10 purchase. I'm not sure whether anyone who spent $200 is happy with their purchase as no one has come forward. Maybe for good reason.

When I get the chance, I will do a double blind test so that this debate can be put to rest. And if there is no difference, I will again admit I was wrong. At that point, I will just be reverting back to my original thought that the clock was bull. Then I will probably keep the clock for its wonderful time keeping ability! We will see.

zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Sorry I didn't respond to you above Tgun5, we must have been composing at the same time. I don't want to rehash everything that has been written, but most of what you say is confirmation of what I see as the problems inherent in your assumptions:

"I surmised that if there was going to be a difference at all, it would probably be because of the clock, not some modification to a clock"
"Trained audiophiles know what to listen for and how to trust what there are hearing to get the results"
"I am also convinced that I have been blessed with the ability to discern differences in sound, their overall effect on the system, and the proper approach to improving the sound"
I do find it just a little intriguing that once again, I seemed to have "hooked up", so to speak, in one of these threads with an audiophile who unshakably believes in his own infallible ability to detect changes in sound caused by something he admits couldn't have any possible effect -- this despite not taking measures to ensure his results aren't spurious -- and that such a person also makes a point of correlating their position in this regard with their religious belief. As you've surmised, and as I told Wellfed offline, it is indeed true that I don't share any beliefs of that type, for whatever that's worth. Although this sample size is certainly too small to judge from (ha! :-), it does make one wonder about the possible connection between faith, or the ability or willingness to believe, and the types of audiophiles we are.

Anyway, the main thing I'm trying to get across here is that "open-mindedness" doesn't just mean being willing to contemplate anything that's suggested by someone -- I could suggest that bringing a rubber ducky into the listening room makes the sound better. It also means a willingness to question oneself. In your threadhead, you expressed what sounded like a sincere desire to test the results you say you found so suprising. I'm simply pointing out, if you care, that you haven't actually accomplished that yet, and why.

I can sympathize that repetitious A/B tests and especially blind tests are not very enjoyable as an entertainment activity, and are a pain in the neck to perform. I think it's great that you're now willing to attempt them if you can, and in fact I think that willingness is more important than if you ever actually do. It's not my desire to "make" you give up your clock by proving you "wrong" -- frankly, I'd rather you acknowledge the human susceptability of yourself and your other listeners, but then go right on enjoying whatever it is you think the clock is doing for you. If you really do perform the number of blind trials necessary to get a reliable answer, there's no doubt you'll discover that you and your friend can't identify the clock's presence unsighted, and though you'll have learned something valuable (not about the clock, but about listening and about yourself), you'll also be at least a little disappointed I'm sure, and it's not my aim to be the cause of that.

At least we agree on the impact of your adventures regarding the Geoffkaits of the world (assuming, of course, that this whole thing isn't actually a kind of 'reverse troll' on your part, which would *make* you one of the Geoffkaits of the world ;^). I pointed out his apparent dilemma several posts ago, but so far silence...

PS -- BTW, I didn't say I was an especially *good* musician ;^)
pitdog75
34 posts
 
reading all these strange topics sometimes i wish we could read more about clever little audiophiles...
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
TBG, you may have a point, in that significant bodies of math accompanied paradigmatic shifts mostly in those sciences where mathematics was already applied, e.g. Physics and Astronomy, from the copernican/Galilean revolution to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In other natural sciences, such as biology and geology, paradigmatic shifts preceeded any mathematical modelling by a significant amount of time. having said this, I contend that CLC/CLF and the various other devices even vaguely related to them seem to fall in the former category, especially considering that they often seek legitimacy in physical phenomena, such as particle entanglement, multi-dymensional geometries, Doppler effects, coherent light emission, quantum state cloning (a physical impossibility according to my admittedly limited understanding of commonly accepted peer-reviewed physics), and the likes. The non mainstream devices created for our beloved audio high end seem to point towards a new non orthodox physics, often derived from hypothesised macroscopic implications of sub-atomic phenomena. I am looking forward to some seminal and rigorous body of work which can explain their unique and apparently non causative behavior.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Guidocorona, you and I have been through this repeatedly. My point, over and over again, is that science is incomplete and that most advances come from anomalies in observations of reality. I have yet to try the CLC and dearly wish that I could have heard a demonstration.

If I heard an improvement as I did and continue to hear with the Intelligent Chip, I would buy one with or without any real understanding of why it worked. It troubles me to hear mystic explanations although they may just be cover for information that the manufacturer does not want to release.

I realize that other explanations, such a skin effects and dielectric problems on wire, vibration control with isolation devices, and cone distortions and flux densities in speakers may be post hoc grasping at science to explain what is different on ones product. These may be plausible but not necessarily correct explanations.

I doubt seriously how much science directs the development of products, or perhaps I should say one science theory rather than another.
More to discover