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
tonnesen
138 posts
 
...having said this, I contend that CLC/CLF and the various other devices

CLF...? hmm, is that the Clever Little F***?

How much does that cost?

;->
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Mr Kait, I have Penrose's fine lay book in front of me. Besides some mild allowances to new age physics in the titles of some subsections, clearly requested by the editors for mass marketing reasons, would you be so kind to point out / quote which sections/passages corroborate the new age point of view? Furthermore, I was not aware that this wonderful and popular volume constituted a theoretical foundation of new age physics.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Guidocorona - don't take me quite so literally; don't think you will find a sentence or a paragraph or a chapter in any of the references I mentioned that will answer any questions directly regarding CLC.

I think the basic point Penorse makes is that computers - even with A.I. and other advances - cannot duplicate the human brain/mind.

Here is some discussion of the Penrose book, including comments by Stephen Hawking (IMO this is not easy reading):

http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

GK
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Huh? Sorry Mr. Kait, you are the one who cited Dr. penrose, not I. what does the extant failure of machines to duplicate the human mind as yet got to do with your products? Unless of course you asserted--quite correctly I should say--that your devices work in one's mind only. . . which Mr. Zaikesman and I would wholeheartedly agree with, and for which there is no need to cite Penrose for corroboration. Once again, I fear you are using misdirection, flawed logic, bibliographical references out of context and overall obfuscation to promote your novelty products.
jadem6's avatar
jadem6
1,074 posts
 
Mr. Kait,

You continue to steer this discussion into the deepest realms of scientific theory, masking the true discussion in the veil of other true scientist’s conceptual discussions. I too have read most everything published by Hawkings, Einstein, Penrose, Feyman, Kant and the like. These men are not discussing unsubstantiated products; they are discussing highly advanced mathematics and physics, most of which is well beyond your Bachelor of Science degree.

You have often tried to mask your products in these men’s scientific discussions, but really sir, can you stop! The further to attempt to cloud the subject, the clearer it is to some of us that nothing you are providing has any factual basis. It is you who has continued to push this discussion to places you clearly have very limited knowledge. You application of finite scientific thought into a product you have built is simply the work of an amateur.

If you do wish to explain the actual “science” behind the clock, IC, pebbles with your own words, not masked within scientific discussion that has no bearing on the product you are selling, I invite you to do so. This would allow for a true discussion. If you continue to chose to run from the truth, than we will continue to call you on it. Discussion of quantum physics, space/time continuum, forth and fifth dimensions theory, relativity and the like is fascinating but not pertinent here. At least until you show me the tie to the aforementioned topics.

I have read every site you have sent us to, both hear and in you’re so called “white paper” of the IC. You have provided nothing but fragmented thought and misinterpretations of scientific theory. Please for your own sake, stop before you make more of a fool of yourself.

As to the ethics of your business…

Below is the final paragraph of a truly interesting site you sent us to, now please explain how this well written summary has any baring on...

Adapting Kant to quantum mechanics and Relativity requires a couple of modifications: First, that things-in-themselves be seen in terms of the Wave Function, as the sum of all possible histories that would exist apart from observation; and second, that the real physical space of phenomenal objects is not necessarily the space that we are able to imaginatively visualize (as discussed in The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry). Making both of these modifications together would require that space neither exists among things-in-themselves as such nor is merely something imposed idiosyncratically by the human brain. This would require that the nature of consciousness, with its attendant phenomenal objects, be part of the structure of reality and not just a psychologistic adaptation in the human species. The nature of Kant's metaphysics is certainly open to that possibility, even if it was a question that he himself did not approach asking. Friesian theory is a bit closer, although the Friesian theory of the knowledge contained in human reason is commonly misunderstood, even by Karl Popper, as merely psychologistic, which of course it is not. But Friesian theory itself might need to make a distinction between the true knowledge that space exists in phenomenal objects, and a merely human limitation in how that space can be visualized.
More to discover