Design Award

Dan Banquer · « **on:** 5 Feb 2007, 01:26 pm »

In the link below, the clever little clock is given a design award by Positive Feedback.
I would like to know how audiophiles at AC interpret this. I should note that the article does not appear to be a hoax. In addition I will refrain from commenting on any post in this in this thread.
Speak your mind AC members!
d.b.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue28/brutus.htm

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 04:36 pm »

The awards are justly given I think. Although, I got one of those disc demagnetizers and accidentally plugged it in backwards, it made the music sound like it was going through a Big Muff pedal. Be careful! But now I use it on the AOL CDs I get in the mail so I can hold stuff onto my refridgerator with them! The clever clock is good too, but not as good as Richard Schlemiel's book "Enhancing Audio By Thinking Really Really Hard". I guess it doesn't qualify as equipment, but once you're done reading it you can put it under your cd player. The cover has a special coating which reflects the latent energy stored on the disc generated by the passionate performance of the artist. Usually this energy dissipates continuously on the journey from the recording studio to the pressing plant and is often too weak to hear with a bookless player. But this book cover material reflects the passion back into the laser pickup mechanism. That's what I'd give the award to, but I guess I'll have to start my own magazine first!

TomW16 · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 05:35 pm »

So let me get this straight. You don't plug the clock into an electrical wall outlet, potentially modifying the power supply of the sound system and you don't plug the clock into the audio chain, you simply bring it into the room and it improves the way you feel.

I can see that this might work if you were worried about missing an appointment and now you could look at the clock and feel more relaxed about knowing the correct time and how much time you have to enjoy the system

$199 seems a bit steep for a modified Timex clock without any descriptions of the modifications. I'll continue to use my wristwatch to tell the time and give myself a feeling of well being.

Tom

smargo · « **Reply #3 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 06:15 pm »

i have had the clock for about 6 months - it doesn't work for me - are you kidding me with this product - i am so tired of so called tweaks that absolutely do not work - i have purchased more bullshit products in the last 10 years than i care to remember.

That includes cd's and vinyl - speakers, cables, amps, phono stages, vibration control - the industry is full of things that work for certain people and stink for others.

Even if someone invents something that suppose to turn your system into "the next best thing" i no longer care or want it.

I hate to tell you how many times ill read a review of some incredible music a reviewer heard that was the "best recording ever" - i went out an purchased it and it sounded awful.

i think for the most part things don't sound as good as i think they should - hence the letdown.

im enjoying music more than ever - yes both with cd's and vinyl - im using a solid sate amp now for the las 6 months that i think is as good as any tube amp i have owned.

im just saying that i can't even read a review anymore - because everything sounds great -

im venting - but reallly for me the clock is an enormous joke based on the ever present "if you don't have one you don't know what your missing bullshit theory that is propagated by this industry"

Im so tired of mediocre crap !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

regards,
smargo

regards,
smargo

Ethan Winer · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 08:03 pm »

Dan,

> the clever little clock is given a design award by Positive Feedback. <

It gets worse than that. You'd think the Consumer Electronics Association would not sink to endorsing this sort of BS, but sadly they're just as gullible. Or just as willing to be bought. I saw a post at the Stereophile forum that the CEA gave an award to the Furutech LP demagnetizer:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=14283&an=0&page=0

So I sent the following to the CEA through their Contact page:

Quote

Hi,

I'm working on an article for a major audio magazine about fraud in marketing for audio products. I noticed you gave an award to the Furutech CD "demagnetizer" and I'm wondering on what basis you determined this is an award-winning product. As best I can tell this device is pure snake oil with no basis in science. So please forgive such a direct and possibly rude sounding question, but did they pay you for this award? If not, is there a way you could put me in touch with one of the judges or the person in charge who decided this product is worthy of an award?

Thanks.

Ethan Winer
www.ethanwiner.com

That was back in November and - no big surprise - I have yet to receive a reply.

--Ethan

ctviggen · « **Reply #5 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 08:15 pm »

You guys are just upset because you didn't think of this "wonderful" idea first. And remember, you need to allow the clock some time to "break in":

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm

Remember, this was a partially blind (one person knew) study that convincingly proves the clock works.

It's well worth the measely $200!

And I don't believe any of this, by the way.

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 08:37 pm »

Quote from: TomW16 on 5 Feb 2007, 05:35 pm

$199 seems a bit steep for a modified Timex clock without any descriptions of the modifications. I'll continue to use my wristwatch to tell the time and give myself a feeling of well being.

Yes, but does it have an orange sticker? If you had taken the free tour of the Clever Clock manufacturing facility like I have you'd change your tune. These stickers are applied by skilled artisans with countless years of experience in the audio arts. Their love and dedication in making these solid, reliable products is unmatched! Did you know it takes a Clever Clock technician over an hour to finish work on just one clock? Quality is their highest priority!

Gordy · « **Reply #7 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 08:50 pm »

This is the same company that sells the $0.79 ceramic "True Tone" cover plates for $30 a piece

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #8 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 09:31 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer on 5 Feb 2007, 08:03 pm

That was back in November and - no big surprise - I have yet to receive a reply.

Maybe they don't like cats.

Can't tell you who it was, but it would have been three people out of this panel of judges. One from the industrial design industry, one from the engineering field, and one from the trade press.

se

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #9 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 09:36 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 5 Feb 2007, 08:37 pm

Yes, but does it have an orange sticker?

The sticker basically comes straight from Peter Belt. Totem Acoustic also uses them on some of their speakers. On their Arro, they have little blue stickers on the tweeter front plate and gold stickers on the rear of the cabinet.

se

John Casler · « **Reply #10 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 10:59 pm »

Quote from: Ethan Winer on 5 Feb 2007, 08:03 pm

Dan,

> the clever little clock is given a design award by Positive Feedback. <

It gets worse than that. You'd think the Consumer Electronics Association would not sink to endorsing this sort of BS, but sadly they're just as gullible. Or just as willing to be bought. I saw a post at the Stereophile forum that the CEA gave an award to the Furutech LP demagnetizer:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=14283&an=0&page=0

So I sent the following to the CEA through their Contact page:

Quote
Hi,

I'm working on an article for a major audio magazine about fraud in marketing for audio products. I noticed you gave an award to the Furutech CD "demagnetizer" and I'm wondering on what basis you determined this is an award-winning product. As best I can tell this device is pure snake oil with no basis in science. So please forgive such a direct and possibly rude sounding question, but did they pay you for this award? If not, is there a way you could put me in touch with one of the judges or the person in charge who decided this product is worthy of an award?

Thanks.

Ethan Winer
www.ethanwiner.com

That was back in November and - no big surprise - I have yet to receive a reply.

--Ethan

Hi Ethan,

Have you tried the Furutech unit?

I can't vouch for its efficacy, but I have a Bedini Dual Beam Clarifier which I use for both CD's and DVD's with good result.

While they (the manufacturers) have tendency to add "magical mystical properties" to the improvement heard, I believe it is simply a reduction of "static charge" that may be read or affecting the laser optical pick up.

I have tested it on over 30 people, and each one heard a distinct and clear difference.

The most common comment is that it is simply "clearer" which would again lead one to think that it reduces low level noise from static electricity somehow getting into the system.

Most also say it is louder, but that is not the case. But if low level noise is reduced, clarity and volume perception seem to be affected.

You could probably talk Furutech into sending you one for evaluation, to see what you hear (if anything).

eric the red · « **Reply #11 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 11:09 pm »

From PF:

"The Clock can not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to such a degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good. I found my entire listening experience to be much more enjoyable with the Clock in place. My primary goal when listening to music is to be transported away from the cares of everyday life, and into a place where I fully connect with the music. That goal was attained beautifully with the Clever Little Clock Machina Dynamica sells the clock direct for $199, and it's well worth the price."

Here's more than you might want to read on it from the AK members who tried it:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=78343&highlight=clever+clock

OnePixel's posts on that thread are pretty entertaining. As is this response from the manufacturer:

"Onepixel - Sorry for any confusion. You do not have to do the tests over again, as long as the battery was dislodged after most of testing was done.

The time displayed by the CLC should be (approx) 99 minutes ahead of EDT (Eastern Daylightsavings Time); I mispoke in my last post - I meant to say EDT not EST.

In California it's what, 8:30 AM Pacific Daylightsavings Time? Then you should set the clock for 12:09 PM.

One feature of the CLC is that it is set for a time in the future, later than the local time. I set the two AK test clocks here prior to shipping; thus anyone receiving one of the test clocks, whether he is in the US or Canada, will receive it already set "correctly" to a time later than his local time.

Overseas shipments are a little more complicated...

Hope this clears things up a bit...

Regards, Geoff"

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #12 on:** 5 Feb 2007, 11:53 pm »

"While they (the manufacturers) have tendency to add "magical mystical properties" to the improvement heard, I believe it is simply a reduction of "static charge" that may be read or affecting the laser optical pick up."

I am going interject something very briefly here: In order to remove a static charge all one has to do is touch whatever has the charge to ground. This will "drain" off the static charge.

My apologies; Please continue your discussion.
d.b.

chadh · « **Reply #13 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:02 am »

Do these "clever little clocks" ever come up for sale on the second hand market?

Let's imagine that they actually manage to sell some of these clocks: then if they don't come up for sale on the used market often, do we imagine that people are actually satisfied with the purchase? Or are they just too embarrassed to admit that they made the purchase in the first place?

I have to admit, I'm extremely fascinated by these things. They just seem so overwhelmingly, stupidly, obscenely implausible that I would really love to have some insight into how the firm can continue to exist (let alone win awards).

If there were an active second hand market in them, I'd be tempted to buy one just for a listen. But as there doesn't seem to be much of a second hand market, I have to wonder why. Maybe they don't actually sell any. Maybe all of their customers are satisfied. Maybe all of their customers are complete idiots. Who knows...

Chad

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #14 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:11 am »

Quote from: John Casler on 5 Feb 2007, 10:59 pm

While they (the manufacturers) have tendency to add "magical mystical properties" to the improvement heard, I believe it is simply a reduction of "static charge" that may be read or affecting the laser optical pick up.

If it's a static charge, then a demagnetizer (or spinning the disc in a magnetic field as the Bedini does) isn't going to do anything about it.

Quote

I have tested it on over 30 people, and each one heard a distinct and clear difference.

Yeah, but that's really not saying much though. I've been able to elicit the same type of response from people just tricking them.

se

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #15 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:13 am »

Quote from: Dan Banquer on 5 Feb 2007, 11:53 pm

I am going interject something very briefly here: In order to remove a static charge all one has to do is touch whatever has the charge to ground. This will "drain" off the static charge.

Not necessarily.

If the charge is on something that's somewhat conductive that would be the case, but on insulating materials such as plastic and vinyl, that won't do it.

se

hmen · « **Reply #16 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:15 am »

I bought a Bedini Clarifier on Agon and I must admit that it seemed to "fix" couple of skipping Cd's. I tried it on some Cd's that were in good shape and nothing seemed to happen. After about 30 Cd's of varying age I came to the conclusion that it's just a fancy CD cleaning machine. It helped some Cd's that had trouble spots but didn't make a noticeable difference on most discs. I guess if you put that liquid on a CD and spin it around real fast some dirt comes out or something.

As far as the clever little clock goes, I think the award says a lot about Positive Feedback.

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #17 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:20 am »

Quote from: Steve Eddy on 6 Feb 2007, 12:13 am

Quote from: Dan Banquer on 5 Feb 2007, 11:53 pm
I am going interject something very briefly here: In order to remove a static charge all one has to do is touch whatever has the charge to ground. This will "drain" off the static charge.

Not necessarily.

If the charge is on something that's somewhat conductive that would be the case, but on insulating materials such as plastic and vinyl, that won't do it.

se

I would think that if the case is a non conductive plastic it would not be electrically considered a ground. However I think you have made a good point for some folks who may not be aware of that.
d.b.

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #18 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:36 am »

Quote from: hmen on 6 Feb 2007, 12:15 am

I bought a Bedini Clarifier on Agon and I must admit that it seemed to "fix" couple of skipping Cd's. I tried it on some Cd's that were in good shape and nothing seemed to happen. After about 30 Cd's of varying age I came to the conclusion that it's just a fancy CD cleaning machine. It helped some Cd's that had trouble spots but didn't make a noticeable difference on most discs. I guess if you put that liquid on a CD and spin it around real fast some dirt comes out or something.

Could well be.

Y'ever read Bedini's patent for the Clarifier? In it, he "proves" that simply spinning a CD in a magnetic field not only performs data compression, but also rearranges the data on the disc.

His "proof" begins with a Kodak PhotoCD.

He picks an image file on it and copies it to a directory on his hard drive. Then he "treats" the disc in his Clarifier, and copies the same image to another directory on his hard drive.

Here's where things get weird.

Instead of doing a file comparison directly on the two image files, he first converts them to PostScript files. Then he loads them up into a text editor. He counts the number of lines of text in the two files. The PostScript file of the image file from the treated disc has fewer lines. So clearly his Clarifier must have performed data compression.

Then he uses a utility in the text editor to show the differences bewteen the two files. There are significant differences. So clearly his Clarifier must have rearranged the data on the disc.

I tried doing the same thing. Only I didn't have a Clarifier so I just copied the same image file off a CD into two different directories without doing anything in between.

I then converted each file to PostScript.

Just doing a directory of the two files showed that they were of two different file sizes. And using the ol' DOS file comparison utility (fc.exe) I saw that there were significant difference between the two files.

Of course the "trick" here is that the PostScript algorithms used in various graphics programs don't create identical files even when the files are generated from the same image.

se

Steve Eddy · « **Reply #19 on:** 6 Feb 2007, 12:43 am »

Quote from: Dan Banquer on 6 Feb 2007, 12:20 am

I would think that if the case is a non conductive plastic it would not be electrically considered a ground.

Well it's not about whether it's electrically considered a ground. It's that charge carriers (i.e. electrons or ions) aren't very mobile in or on non-conductive plastics. That's why they're used as electrical insulators, and that's why the static charges on such plastics won't discharge if you simply touch them to something connected to ground. If it worked that way, you'd never need anything like a ZeroStat gun for your LPs.

se