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
jayboard
301 posts
 
Tbg said
you also fail to realize that the so-called placebo effect works both ways. Prior conceptions, such as yours, that there could be no effect can condition not hearing one.
That's not very relevant. It's reasonable and scientific when assessing any new component put into a system, whether it's a $10 alarm clock or a $3,000 DAC, to start off by assuming the new item won't make any difference, positive or negative. It's the job of the new component to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is wrong. That's a fair approach, and it's the one Tgun says he started out with.
Were medical studies to suggest to subjects that this medicine will have no effect, it would minimize its effect.
?? I hope we would want to know this information about the so-called medicine. Are you suggesting that it's picking nits to draw a distinction between a placebo and a real drug?
I certain don't see myself as a critic of science, just as a critic of how much we know through science, at least thus far. Certainly good science is always prepared for a paradigm shift where we realized what we thought we knew was wrong.
Whoa. You've made a big leap here. The question is whether this little clock makes a difference or not. That's what the argument is about. You sound as if you're saying that the possibility that current scientific knowledge might not be able to explain a given observation means that the observation was validly made. That may be expedient, but it's hardly logical.
science is incomplete and ... most advances come from anomalies in observations of reality.
Accepting for the sake of argument your assertion, don't forget that these observed anomalies are outcomes of the scientific method. (I hope I have not taken you out of context.) One starts out with a specific hypothesis and under as controlled conditions as possible (as in an experiment) tests that hypothesis. Tgun's listening session, though a typical audiophile good time (including the companion who has better ears than one's own, the companion who has no reason to be agreeable, etc.), was not a controlled trial. Let's not dismiss science as inadequate before we've even attempted to apply it.

I object to your dragging science, an innocent bystander here, in as a whipping boy for your argument. On the other hand, I didn't have much objection to Tgun's original post, and he certainly doesn't owe it to any of us to do a double-blind test or take any extra measures. I find the subject of his subjective listening session pretty outlandish, but what the heck. It's Audiogon.

Zaikesman said
Guys really *do* think they can hear better than other people; really *do* think they're not subject to the same pitfalls of the mind as the riff-raff;
Sure! Just like we all think we're superior judges of character (and in our judgment, other people just are not as reasonable as we are), when in fact we're probably all below average. LOL
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Nice post Jayboard, glad to make your acquaintance.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,240 posts
 
Just like we all think we're superior judges of character (and in our judgment, other people just are not as reasonable as we are)
Similarly, not sure I've ever met anyone who thinks they don't have a great sense of humor, are not a good driver, or don't know themselves well.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Jayboard, I am not the one dragging science into such discussions. Those who dismiss devices as without scientific explanation and demanding that "science" in the guise of DBTesting are doing the dragging. I am making three points.

One is that science does not know the basis of all phenomena. I certainly cannot understand how the CLC or CLS might affect what we hear. I am not defending either and own neither.

Secondly, I don't understand why the results of "scientific" testing would resolve whether a device would satisfy a prospective buyer of its worth. A test must validly assess differences to be convincing.

Third, many who say they embrace science speak of the possibility that humans can be affected by their prior conceptions and think they hear an improvement. I merely pointed out that this is a two way street. People whose prior conception is that there is no difference are equally susceptible to not hearing a difference.

I am not claiming that I can hear what others cannot. But I do believe that some dismiss what others decide as preposterous and claim that "science" and "scientific testing" would prove them right.

Regardless of how tests such as proposed by Zaikesman might come out, one side or the other would be unconvinced.

Sales of the CLC and some experimenting with the Sharp probably have been spurred by these threads as people do what they always have done--try it for themselves.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
I'm just waiting for the day when an audiophile comes on one of these forums and declares how much better his sound is now that he's castrated himself. The result might be grisly, but on the positive side it could help tone down the rancor of these debates some... ;^)
More to discover