Clever Little Clock - high-end audio insanity?

I teach research methods and find the question of whether a random sample's sampling error could have accounted for the variation noted to be trivial, especially as anything will be statistically significant if the sample size is large.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but to put it simply, if your sample size is too small, say 2 experiments with the CLC, you might guess by chance that there is an improvement with the CLC both times and conclude that it works. If you do the experiment a hundred times you will not consistently guess correctly that there is an improvement with the CLC (unless by some miracle the thing actually worked). You need to do the experiment many times, and consistently determine when the clock is in the house. If the effect is as profound as some people claim, you should be able to easily determine if it is in the house or not 100% of the time.

I applaud Zaikesman's efforts to bring some sanity to this, but for me the damage is done. I simply cannot trust anything that people write here nor anything published in the audiophile mags. I've heard good music in my system so I know there is something worthwhile in high end audio equipment, but audiophiles appear to be a sorry lot and are not doing much to help the hobby with all of this silliness.

Tgb: Like Tonnesen, I don't know what you intend by that quote (it almost sounds like you're saying "statistics can prove anything"). We're only saying that A) you can't roll dice once or twice and learn how "lucky" you are, and B) tests need certain controls, like isolating variables and accounting for possible biasing effects, if we're not to be misled. You teach research methodology, you've got to know this better than me.

Anyway, I agree that you don't necessarily need an explanation if you perceive a positive difference; we just differ in our levels of satisfaction with not having a plausible explanation (or, having an implausible one), and in what we conclude from that about what's likely to be really going on. As I just posted on the other thread, most of the other tweaks you mention (filters, CD mats, even a plug-in clock) possibly have plausible methods of causation that could account for any perceived effects. It's the ones that don't (the CLC, the "Intelligent Chip") which demand the most skeptical scrutiny. You may not feel the same, but I'm curious to know how anything works, including in my system.

I also agree with the criticisms (from more than one direction) that overall, what we're trying to do is listen to and enjoy music (and maybe gear as well), not run "scientific experiments". However, some of us feel it is quite possible -- and important -- to find both truth in beauty *and* beauty in truth.

haha, i cant believe that this thread is still going on.

You're welcome Bigjoe!

Zaikesman and Tonnesen, as you know, tests of statistical significance are sensitive to how big the sample is. With a sample of 25,000, any relationship will prove statistically significant. Since we are all too willing to say that a relationship that is statistically significant is also significant, we are in danger of saying as you think I am saying that you can prove anything with statistical significance tests. These tests were developed to answer the simple question of whether an unusual random sample from a population where there was no difference could have given us sample results where there is a difference.

In the tests that you both propose as to whether subject hear or don't hear the CLC is present, a large sample of say 10,000 would achieve statistical significance even were there no difference, although I would not predict in which direction, such as whether the CLS helped or hurt.

I am not being anti-science or anti-logic, I am merely saying that such tests may not be a valid method to prove or disprove whether the CLC does anything. I am also saying that those who claim it does nothing cannot claim the high ground by saying that those hearing a difference are delusional as those hearing no difference may also be affected by prior conceptions.